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

[Michael Welzl]

well - they have been refusing too long to do them at all. i guess that’s part of the problem

Sent from my iPhone

> On 4 Apr 2018, at 09:42, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well.
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 9:14 AM Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 3, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Jesper Louis Andersen <jesper.louis.andersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM Michael Welzl <michawe at 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 at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20180404/64537d99/attachment.html>