Subject: Re: [core] core Digest, Vol 66, Issue 21

From: "Carey, Timothy (Timothy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0000

Carsten,

It depends if you want the same reliability/semantics for confirmation as UDP.
So for reliability I guess one would say UDP isn't reliable enough for certain application; TCP is vastly more reliable than UDP and CON would be incrementally more reliable than TCP and the same as UDP/CON. If you don't want the same reliability as UDP/CON just use NON which was the direction Hannes was going in TCP draft 03 but if you want to be sure and have the same behavior as UDP/CON use CON.

BR,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: core [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 5:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: core Digest, Vol 66, Issue 21

Send core mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of core digest..."