Hi Joe,
the document defines one more term:
Transport Service Instance: an arrangement of transport protocols
with a selected set of features and configuration parameters that
implements a single transport service, e.g. a protocol stack (RTP
over UDP).
This is to describe
Am 04.06.2015 um 23:20 schrieb Joe Touch:
On 6/3/2015 10:45 PM, Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote:
In my presentation in Dallas I had suggested adding RTP (and even HTTP)
because as both Mirja and Christian mention some 'applications' are
requesting functionalities that are got given elsewhere.
On 6/5/2015 5:11 AM, Helge Backhaus wrote:
Am 04.06.2015 um 23:20 schrieb Joe Touch:
...
There are many services built on top of HTTP, at which point HTTP is just
another part of what this document calls a transport service.
As a result, unless you'll be describing every possible stack
I agree, the discussion should be better structured ...
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:53 PM, Mohamed Oulmahdi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
mailto:to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 6/3/2015 2:26 PM,
On 6/5/2015 12:53 PM, Mohamed Oulmahdi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
mailto:to...@isi.edu 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
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu 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
layer, because abstraction means that
Well... it's a typical engineering trade-off decision to make...
On 04 Jun 2015, at 07:45, Marie-Jose Montpetit mari...@mit.edu wrote:
In my presentation in Dallas I had suggested adding RTP (and even HTTP)
because as both Mirja and Christian mention some 'applications' are
requesting
Sounds to me like we know we want to cover some of the unique
features/components of RTP without having to go to the trouble of wedging a
full description of the protocol (as in the other section) into the doc, a task
complicated by the fact that RTP assumes a more fluid separation of
nono. read the charter. it says that we’ll:
1) Define a set of Transport Services, identifying the
services provided by existing IETF protocols and congestion
control mechanisms. As a starting point, the working group will
consider services used
between two endpoints.”
This is bottom-up, and
Hi,
I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two
arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from
draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the documents that will follow it. I
understand that it's a non-obvious question whether RTP should be
Hi,
I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two arguments
that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from
draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the documents that will follow it. I
understand that it's a non-obvious question whether RTP should be considered
On 03 Jun 2015, at 16:48, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two
arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from
draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the documents that will follow it. I
understand that
Hi all,
On 03.06.2015 17:04, Brian Trammell wrote:
On 03 Jun 2015, at 16:48, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two
arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from
draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the
i'm fine with all that...
Sent from my iPhone
On 3. juni 2015, at 17:58, Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch
wrote:
Hi all,
On 03.06.2015 17:04, Brian Trammell wrote:
On 03 Jun 2015, at 16:48, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
I know this has been discussed before,
14 matches
Mail list logo
