Hi Mirja, all, On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 12:23:21PM +0100, Mirja Kühlewind wrote: > >Sections 3.2 and 3.3 in draft-03 remind us that there are > >commonalities between MPTCP (RFC6897) and SCTP APIs (RFC6458). They > >could be further summarised, perhaps in a dedicated session to > >“multi-path features”, abstracting what both protocols provide to > >applications. It could be, for example, inside section 4 as > >subsection. > thanks for this offer. The idea of this document is to first describe all > existing protocols separately and then based on these descriptions detect > common transport service features. And, this might be again a terminology > issues, this is not about the API that is exposed to the higher layer but > rather about the actual feature that are implemented below. > > Having said this, I'd like to first see a complete section (3.2) on MPTCP > before we start to writing something on this in section 4. However, I'm sure > you could also help to provide some text in section 3.2...? That would be > great!
Yes, that was the plan. I think the API for both SCTP and MPTCP are relevant in highlighting the underlying features of the protocol, even though these APIs are not what needs to be described. The synthesis in section 4 should come at a later stage, once 3.2 (and perhaps a similar discussion in SCTP's section), have been written up. -- Olivier Mehani <olivier.meh...@nicta.com.au> PGP fingerprint: 4435 CF6A 7C8D DD9B E2DE F5F9 F012 A6E2 98C6 6655 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted.
pgpBXSLMMm_GK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
