Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
[...]
Also, it might be worth to have an socket API consideration appendix...
Yes, it would need a small API update to work - this can be described if
people want to progress this.
Just a socket option would be enough. I kind of feel like there should
not be a standard API though. It should only be used in a few special
cases where a standard API may not be needed. If there is a standard
API, it might be tempting to use this in general...
Stig
I think the main question we face is which approach to advocate:
* UDP
* An updated UDP with no checksum
* UDP-Lite
* A UDP-Lite profile (e.g. only minimal coverage)
* UDPTT
I don't know if I answered your questions.
Best wishes,
Gorry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
