On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> You're getting far ahead of the conversation, IMO. This document needs to
> start by explaining the services we already have before jumping into a
> "service of services" model.
>
> I don't disagree with the goal, but it's impractical to deve
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 6/19/2015 6:22 AM, Michael Welzl wrote:
> >
> > On 19 Jun 2015, at 14:03, Mirja Kühlewind <
> mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote:
> >> So there current API is always bound to a specify protocol which
> >> already provides you a certai
Hi,
On Jun 11, 2015 4:11 PM, "Mirja Kühlewind"
wrote:
>
> Hi Gorry,
>
> see below.
>
>
>>> - Limited control over segment transmission scheduling (Nagle's
>>> algorithm):
>>> This allows for delay minimization in interactive applications.
>>
>>
>> GF: Not quite - To me, it prevents increa
I agree, the discussion should be better structured ...
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 6/5/2015 12:53 PM, Mohamed Oulmahdi wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Joe Touch > <mailto:to...@isi.edu>> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 6/3/2015 2:26 PM, Mohamed Oulmahdi wrote:
> > I think that speaking specifically about any protocol in this document
> > will not be in the sens of an "abstract" interface for the Transport
> >
I think that speaking specifically about any protocol in this document will
not be in the sens of an "abstract" interface for the Transport layer,
because abstraction means that application will no longer be aware of who
or what Transport services are really offered. But in the same time, this
abst
