Hi Karen, section 3 should describe what currently is standardized. Am I right that there is no RFC on CMT SCTP (yet)… and that this was/is the reason that there was some discussion that this is out of scope? If so, what the status of CMT SCTP? Will there be potentially be an RFC anytime soon?
However, in section 3 if there are any similarities to MPTCP in SCTP, either in MH or CMT, these could be described in a similar way and potentially even refer to MPTCP or the other way around. If SCTP is described independent of MPTCP that’s fine as well, or potentially even better for the start. As soon as we then start writing section 4, we anyway to have to detect those similarities and can still add references or adapt the wording to use the same term later on. Mirja > Am 16.03.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen > <karen.niel...@tieto.com>: > > Hi Mirja, > >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Yep. APIs should not be discussed in section 4. However, for the protocol >> description in section 3, if you look at the other descriptions, there is > also a >> subsection on the (higher layer) interface. As you say there is often a > strong >> dependency therefore I think there is a purpose to describe the interface > as >> well (in section 3) to have a ground truth for discussion. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> Yes! >> > [Karen ] Do you here refer to SCTP MH or CMT SCTP ? > > MPTCP include concurrency aspects which, for SCTP, only significantly > arise with CMT SCTP. > > It has previously been stated that CMT SCTP would not be in scope of taps. > Is that still the assumption ? > > BR, Karen > >> Mirja >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
