Hi Linda,
We have a full talk about QUIC which is not exactly HTTP but might get
us some taste of the direction of HTTP.
However, if there are specific things to discuss, I am more than open to
discuss them.
Martin
On 10/24/2013 08:19 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Martin and Spencer,
Possible to include HTTP? More and more applications run HTTP, and many people
believe that HTTP is the future of the transport protocol(s).
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Announcing the TSVAREA session on "Evolution of IETF Transport
Protocols" @ IETF-88
Dear all,
We would like to give time to the Transport Area to discuss any
potential need to evolve the IETF transport protocols.
There are a number of proposals discussed in the IETF and outside of
the
IETF on changing parts of TCP (e.g. laminar TCP [1]), reusing parts of
TCP (e.g., TCP Minion [2]), completely new transport protocols (e.g.
QUIC [3]), and also discussions about the congestion control approach
to
be used (e.g., delay-based [4], LEDBAT [5]).
(We are fully aware that this list of proposals is incomplete)
Spencer and I are planning a slot in the TSVAREA session at IETF 88 in
Vancouver to discuss this topic.
More information to come soon.
Let Spencer and me know at [email protected] if you are interested
in contributing actively to the session.
Thanks,
Spencer and Martin, your TSV ADs.
References
[1] https://developers.google.com/speed/protocols/tcp-laminar
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iyengar-minion-concept
[3]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqsQx7rFV-
ev2jRFUoVD34/edit?pli=1
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/charter/
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ledbat/charter/
