Re: WG chair on buffer exhaustion
Caitlin Bestler <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rddp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 07:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > If this class of mechanism is needed, that sort of delay may > be ok. The determining factors will be the level and nature > of protection of the shared untagged receive resources from > exhaustion that is necessary, and "necessary" will probably > be in the sense of "available to the ULP" (i.e., "MUST implement", > not "MUST use"). Which suggests that the obvious set of options to consider are: - MUST support hard or soft limits. MAY support both. - MUST support hard limits. MAY support soft. - MUST support soft limits. MAY support hard. - MUST support hard and soft limits (but not necessarily both limits on any single stream). My initial hunch is to favor the first or the last option, with a slight preference for the last one. Caitlin Bestler - [email protected] - http://asomi.com/