[e2e] overlay over TCP

[Joe Touch]

Randall Stewart wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Armando L. Caro, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In particular, _if_ you're referring to PR-SCTP, please indicate where
>>>> in the PR-SCTP RFC its use for unreliable, out-of-order messages is
>>>> simply and clearly described. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For out-of-order messages, refer to Section 6.6 in RFC 2960. I think
>>> this section is fairly clear.
>>>
>>> For unreliable messages, refer to Section in 3.5 and 3.6 in RFC 3758.  I
>>> think this section is clear, given that the reader is familiar with SCTP
>>> basics.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greek is clear to a Greek as well. ;-)
> 
> 
> Hmm but we are all Geeks here does that count :-D
> 
>>
>> Sec 3.5 and 3.6 are obscure, if the intent is to describe something 
>> that supports UDP-like semantics with TCp-like congestion control, 
>> such as is referred to in passing near the end of Sec 1 (item #3) of 
>> that RFC.
>>
>> As to the full set of reasons for which DCCP is preferable to PR-SCTP, 
>> see sec 3.3.2 of the DCCP problem statement ID (where PR-SCTP is 
>> referred to as U-SCTP).
> 
> Hmm.. is this an expired draft? I searched the ietf drafts
> and I also looked off the DCCP wg page and can't find
> this draft...

It's an expired draft on the DCCP web page at ICIR, which they have 
posted. Use Google on "DCCP"

>> Note that item F2 in sec 3.5  of RFC 3758 also allows delaying 
>> outgoing chunks for aggregation; DCCP does not appear to do that (any 
>> DCCP experts like to chime in?)DCCP appers to correlate packets on the 
>> wire with application writes and reads; the same is not necessarily 
>> true with SCTP. There are substantial advantages to such correlation 
>> when tunneling network layer packets over transport protocols. I think 
>> that's what David Reed was referring to...
>>
> That is a base feature of SCTP as well.. even though its reflected
> in RFC3758. In the sockets API we call it SCTP_NODELAY (same
> as in TCP) and it is basically an implemenation of nagel. Of

(Nagle? - it's a guy's last name, FYI ;-)

> course it is also required that it be disableable... so if
> one wants "no bundling" one turns SCTP_NODELAY off.. which
> at least for the socket api in BSD is on by default.
> 
> R

AOK - the protocol says MAY, doesn't say "MAY, but MUST be disableable". 
Are you checking that sort of consistency in your bake-offs?

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20050120/2ec6319a/signature.bin