Hi Michael,
> On 17. Jun 2017, at 12:02, Michael Welzl wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks indeed for sharing this - I think this is very interesting input to
> the group.
> I agree with the things Tommy says below, but I have some additional thoughts
> that I wanted to share.
>
>
On 6/16/2017 11:23 AM, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> - I’d love to see the terminology be less sockets-specific, especially
> considering the work for Post-Sockets APIs. A set of intents should be able
> to be applied to individual messages being sent or on a higher-level
> protocol, ideally, not just
Hi Tommy,
thanks for your appreciation and comments.
> A few initial comments:
>
> - I’d love to see the terminology be less sockets-specific, especially
> considering the work for Post-Sockets APIs. A set of intents should be able
> to be applied to individual messages being sent or on a
Hi,
Thanks indeed for sharing this - I think this is very interesting input to the
group.
I agree with the things Tommy says below, but I have some additional thoughts
that I wanted to share.
Our charter is about existing protocols and what they can do. For TCP, MPTCP,
UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP and
Hi Philipp,
Thanks for sharing this document! Providing an API for generic network intents
is something of a Holy Grail—valuable but elusive to nail down. This document
should be a good place to start a conversation, and I look forward to
discussing it in Prague.
A few initial comments:
-