On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Gerrit Renker wrote:
Later, Gerrit wrote:
It is a chicken-and-egg problem. In its current form, the TFRC
implementation buys no compelling performance advantage over using
UDP.
(let's ignore the word "performance" here, I think it doesn't quite
fit -
but it
I'll try to respond to this on behalf of the authors, here is what I think:
* This seems a straight-forward piece of work that could be implemented
quickly too. It has been raised before, but I think now would be an
excellent time to progress this. It needs to be PS and should take one
IETF-c
what the applications that would need TFRC today? everything seems
handled by TCP or UDP...
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Gerrit Renker wrote:
>> Later, Gerrit wrote:
>>
>> > It is a chicken-and-egg problem. In its current form, the TFRC
>> implementation buys no compelling performance advanta
On 23 August 2010 15:00, Saverio Mascolo wrote:
> what the applications that would need TFRC today? everything seems
> handled by TCP or UDP...
and everything seems handled by Microsoft ... so why looking at new
transport protocols ;)
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Gerrit Renker wrote:
>>>
On 23 August 2010 19:01, Emmanuel Lochin wrote:
>
> On 23 August 2010 15:00, Saverio Mascolo wrote:
> > what the applications that would need TFRC today? everything seems
> > handled by TCP or UDP...
>
> and everything seems handled by Microsoft ... so why looking at new
> transport protocols ;)
