Subject: Re: [tcpm] The List (of application-layer desired features)

From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:25:52 +0000

Well, part of this is also related to TCPM, but for simplicity I am fine with keeping the discussion on the TSVWG list right now. The community is mostly the same anyway...

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Peon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:16 AM
> To: HTTP Working Group; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: The List (of application-layer desired features)
> 
> Actually sending to the right list for TSVWG...
> 
> -=R
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Roberto Peon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	For those of you who missed it, at the HTTPBis/TSVG 
> joint session, a question about what applications want from 
> the transport (I really want to put quotes around that) came up.
> 
> 	Here is a rendition of what was on the note that I 
> jotted down in response to this question, and which I passed 
> to people at the mic.
> 
> 	(Apps-folks want the following) Deployed in 1996:
> 	-----------------------------------------
> 	- Prioritization
> 	- Partial Reliability
> 	- "Shared" congestion between multiple streams
> 	- Security
> 	- No HOL blocking on stream X when loss on stream Y
> 	- Cheap/Fast  channel/connection setup
> 	- Wide, "safe" deployment
> 	- Competes with TCP/HTTP/1.1 (performance-wise)
> 	- Multipath/roaming robustness, i.e. the "driveway" problem
> 
> 
> 	I'll reiterate that by far the most important feature 
> is "is deployed".
> 	Nothing else matters until that is true, at least at 
> the application-layer.
> 	
> 	-=R
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
>