Hi Joe,
Yes, I completely agree. The current text in -arch expresses this as:
2. Both stacks MUST offer the same transport services, as required
by the application. For example, if an application specifies
that it requires reliable transmission of data, then a Protocol
Stack using UDP without any reliability layer on top would not be
allowed to replace a Protocol Stack using TCP. However, if the
application does not require reliability, then a Protocol Stack
that adds unnecessary reliability might be allowed as an
equivalent Protocol Stack as long as it does not conflict with
any other application-requested properties.
If you think we can clarify this any further, let me know!
Thanks,
Tommy
> On Jul 23, 2019, at 11:55 AM, Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 8:19 AM, Theresa Enghardt <ther...@inet.tu-berlin.de
>> <mailto:ther...@inet.tu-berlin.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Another important difference between TCP and UDP are Message Boundaries.
>> So in some cases, TCP + Framer may be equivalent to UDP.
>
> FWIW, they might provide *similar* capabilities, even only those that the app
> is concerned about, but there are a LOT of other differences that can’t be
> glossed over. In some cases, it is TCP that is lacking (as above); in others,
> UDP).
>
> It’s only important whether the user does or doesn’t care about those
> properties. When they match what they care about, they can be considered
> equivalent.
>
> I.e., there’s not likely going to be a strict and absolute equivalence
> between transports.
>
> Equivalence is TO THE USER, relative to their constraints.
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
