Subject: Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-01.txt

From: Wolfgang Beck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:20:00 +0100

Would it make sense to include statements about latency?

We recently had a discussion with one of our suppliers about application
layer timeouts that fired while the request was still stuck in the send
queue.

There were statements like 'UDP never queues' or 'we can't control the TCP
send buffer size'.

Maybe some general discussion of the interactions between application layer
timers and transport layer retransmission strategies (like Nagle) would be
useful.

Wolfgang Beck

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 07:51:48 -0000

> Would it make sense to include statements about latency?
I think if we come to think about the API that could be presented by TAPS
to the application, we'll need to focus on what characteristics the Apps
expect from the network. Low latency is clearly one service that many apps
will desire.

> timers and transport layer retransmission strategies (like Nagle) would be
I agree, some words on the Latency introduced by mechanisms would be good.

> Wolfgang Beck
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
>
Gorry