Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1622 bytes --]

How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 9:14 AM Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Jesper Louis Andersen <
> jesper.louis.andersen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>> please, please, people, take a look at the ietf taps (“transport
>> services”) working group  :-)
>>
>>
> I tried looking it up. It seems the TAPS WG is about building a consistent
> interface to different protocols in order to get a new interface rather
> than, say, the bsd socket interface.
>
> But my search turned up several drafts from the WG. Did you have one in
> particular in mind?
>
>
> Thanks for taking a look!
> Indeed, it’s about a consistent interface - I was provoked to send this
> message by the reference to ossification, and talk of messages (lacking in
> TCP).
> Sure, when you’re in control of both ends of a connection, you can build
> whatever you want on top of UDP - but there’s a lot of wheel re-inventing
> there. Really, the transport layer can’t change as long as applications (or
> their libraries) are exposed to only the services of TCP and UDP, and
> thereby statically bound to these transport protocols.
>
> I think I’d recommend this draft as a starting point:
> https://taps-api.github.io/drafts/draft-trammell-taps-interface.html
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2768 bytes --]