When someone talks about using TCP or SCTP then they are typically using an API to the transport that hides a lot of details. My present draft is only about the Datagram aspects of the API. For UDP applications, many times you need require options or IP-level functions along with UDP. I'd personally love to get helpful review inputs the ART area people (applications/real-time) to figure this out.
I was hoping we could put the text in the WG draft after we got this input. But maybe, this can't happen soon... and we need a different plan? I'll maybe see you people today perhaps to decide how best to present this? Gorry > >> On 2. apr. 2016, at 16.49, Aaron Falk <aaron.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF >> <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com <mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> Is all you/Gorry want to do is get a slide into the chair slide deck >> that says "these drafts in TSV could use ART clue and attention", that >> should be fine (but putting together a slide that says whatever you want >> to ask is the key action). >> >> >> To me the key question is whether it is premature. It might be useful >> to get a few more protocols beyond TCP, SCTP, and UDP to better >> illustrate the range of features. Interested in other opinions. > > As an author of the -usage document, this being premature is indeed also > my concern. Iâd feel more comfortable doing this with the next version, > at the next IETF. > > Cheers, > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > 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
