One additional point: TCP services described in 3.1.3 should also include PUSH and URG capabilities.
FWIW, the specific section of RFC793 that defines the TCP interfaces - above and below - is 3.8. Joe On 12/18/2014 3:39 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > Some feedback below. Although I focus on some TCP and UDP specifics, > some observations apply to other transports as well. > > Joe > > ----- > > 3.1.1 > TCP segments fit into IP packets, but those packets are not > necessarily constrained to fit into a lower-layer frame. > They can be source fragmented. > > PathMTU discovery is supported by TCP but may be inhibited > by network conditions (ICMP blocking); PLMTUD is supposed > to be supported as well. > > 3.1.2 > TCP's API is mostly specified in RFC793. > > What's missing are how options and parameters are managed. > > 3.1.3 > TCP provides a byte-ordered reliable stream. How that > is delivered - e.g., by segments - is irrelevant, if only > because TCP can change those segment boundaries during > operation (e.g., with path MTU updates). > > this section should also mention flow control - TCP > doesn't dump data on the floor if the receiver > can't process it fast enough (vs. UDP) > > additionally, the ports ought to be discussed in more detail. > ports in the SYN have a different meaning that ports in other > segments. The SYN destination port indicates the receiving > ` service, which typically involves BOTH demuxing to a process > within a host AND indicating the format of the stream. Ports > there and in all other segments are only demultiplexing > indicators. > > 3.4.1 > UDP doesn't fragment packets into IP packets; it maps to > a single IP packet, which itself may be fragmented. The > IP fragments are what are limited by the lower-layer > frames. > > Because UDP is connectionless, if you're going to talk > about properties of sequences of messages, you need to > explain what that sequence is - i.e., you need to > define what it means to have a UDP flow, and only > such flows are subject to flow/congestion control, > PMTUD, etc. > > > 3.4.2 > RFC768 describes an API for UDP. As with TCP, > it leaves out options and parameters. > > 3.4.3 > should include port demuxing here too, with the same > caveats as noted above for TCP (i.e., ports for > messages have multiple meanings) > > ---- > > > On 12/18/2014 6:44 AM, Brian Trammell wrote: >> Greetings, all, >> >> We've posted a -01 rev of the TAPS transports document. We believe that the >> format and level of detail for the TCP section is about what we're targeting >> for each of the other sections, but this is still open to discussion. The >> document also includes at least a little text on most of the transport >> protocols identified in the -00 revision. Welcome also to Mirja Kühlewind, >> added as an additional editor. >> >> If there are any additional transport protocols we're missing, or other >> comments on document structure, please send them to the list. >> >> Document source is available (with a kramdown-rfc2629-based workflow) at >> https://github.com/britram/taps-transports. Feel free to send pull requests >> against the markdown, or XML/text diffs to the editors, for contributions to >> sections of the document. >> >> Cheers, and merry Christmas, >> >> Brian >> >>> On 18 Dec 2014, at 15:06, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: >>> >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the Transport Services Working Group of the >>> IETF. >>> >>> Title : Services provided by IETF transport protocols and >>> congestion control mechanisms >>> Authors : Godred Fairhurst >>> Brian Trammell >>> Mirja Kuehlewind >>> Filename : draft-ietf-taps-transports-01.txt >>> Pages : 15 >>> Date : 2014-12-18 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document describes services provided by existing IETF protocols >>> and congestion control mechanisms. It is designed to help >>> application and network stack programmers and to inform the work of >>> the IETF TAPS Working Group. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports/ >>> >>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-01 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-taps-transports-01 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Taps mailing list >>> Taps@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Taps mailing list >> Taps@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps >> _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
