Subject: [Tsvwg] SCTP RFC 2960 && draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-06.txt

From: "Ian Barile" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:57:41 -0700

To Whom It May Concern:

I have recently learned about the proposal of the new transport protocol 
SCTP and it shows great promise.  I am also new to the IETF working group 
discussions. 

One of the things that I like about SCTP is that it allows you to use many 
virtualized streams over a single connection.  The possibilities for using 
this to replace TCP and use the virtualized streams to simplfy parsing 
bytes streams is excellent.  However, in my reading I didn't come across 2 
ideas that I thought could add to the flexibility of SCTP and I was 
wondering if any discussion had occured on these topics. 

1.  Dynamically adding and removing the number of virtualized streams on a 
connection.
2.  Prioritizing delivery of specific virtualized streams to enhance 
quality of service.

If they have been discussed for the standard and can somone point me to 
further reading on these topics.

Thanks
Ian Barile

---

From: "Armando L. Caro Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:45:28 -0400 (EDT)

> 1.  Dynamically adding and removing the number of virtualized streams on a

I have heard this idea bounced around, but I don't know if anyone has
looked into this area.

> 2.  Prioritizing delivery of specific virtualized streams to enhance

Jerry Heinz here at UD is currently investigating the use of prioritized
streams. In particular, he is investigating how such a feature could be
useful to instant messager applications. However, I don't think he has any
papers yet...

~armando

0--                                                  --0
| Armando L. Caro Jr.      |  Protocol Engineering Lab |
| www.cis.udel.edu/~acaro  |    University of Delaware |
0--                                                  --0

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:23:11 -0500

"Armando L. Caro Jr." wrote:
..
> I have heard this idea bounced around, but I don't know if anyone has

This was debated at length during the development of SCTP and at the end
we reached the consensus that the complexity of adding this feature
outweighed the value it could bring. For example, if one ever would be
in a situation where additional streams is needed, one could always open
more at the assoc initialization since the cost of maintaining extra
streams is close to null. Similarly, there seems to be no good reason
that one would need to remove stream that are no longer in use.

regards,
-Qiaobing