Subject: RE: [tcpm] TCPx2

From: "Caitlin Bestler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:33:23 -0700

Armando L. Caro, Jr. wrote:
> Ah, but now we are going down the path of an entirely
> different protocol. Mark's intention was to keep the protocol
> semantics the same, but just get more header space.
> 
> 

To me what is frozen are those pesky L4-aware network elements
and the SOCK_STREAM payload semantics. It would be worthwhile
to consider proposals, even with new semantics, that enhance
connection setup and provide for more option space, as long
as it did not disrupt either network elements or the basic
listen()/connect()/accept()/sendmsg()/recvmsg() application
layer interactions. Of course there may be new options associated
with the listen()/connect() and accept(), as long as they stay
options. After that, you're talking applications having to
rethink, in which case why not use SCTP?

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