A Comparison between SCTP and QUIC
draft-joseph-quic-comparison-quic-sctp-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Arun Joseph , Tianxiang Li , Zihao He , Yong Cui , Lixia Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2018-09-06 (Latest revision 2018-03-05) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
To cumulate design lessons from our protocol development efforts, this document provides a preliminary comparison between two transport protocol designs, Stream Control Transport Protocol (SCTP) and Quick UDP Internet Connections (QUIC). We identify their commonalities and differences, summarize the characteristics of QUIC which we believe represent progresses in transport protocol designs. We hope this draft useful in helping others to gain further understanding of both SCTP and QUIC, and in future protocol design efforts.
Authors
Arun Joseph
Tianxiang Li
Zihao He
Yong Cui
Lixia Zhang
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)