Re: Any comments on draft-fairhurst-6man-tsvwg-udptt-01

[Stig Venaas <stig at venaas.com>]

Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
[...]
> > Also, it might be worth to have an socket API consideration appendix...
> Yes, it would need a small API update to work - this can be described if 
> people want to progress this.

Just a socket option would be enough. I kind of feel like there should
not be a standard API though. It should only be used in a few special
cases where a standard API may not be needed. If there is a standard
API, it might be tempting to use this in general...

Stig

> I think the main question we face is which approach to advocate:
> * UDP
> * An updated UDP with no checksum
> * UDP-Lite
> * A UDP-Lite profile (e.g. only minimal coverage)
> * UDPTT
>
> I don't know if I answered your questions.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gorry
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6 at ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------