Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List

Walter <walter.stanish@gmail.com> Wed, 14 March 2012 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <walter.stanish@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD94A21F87C9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.874
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.725, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+qu53NCnBFd for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6D721F87B0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so2753288yen.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f0/Y1RQ1bUPU59h5RA5SqGOeiVyRK4XMA+jL5pvRBDI=; b=PNsgYD4HZkAUGUdkOTxfhrcrZXie1e0e0pFBXQwniU8JqTonPv5FzvKE//w4Zxq4wI vghSllB3eYAIO4s3KXLFk0RwSltyJ0D3s2v7iCzE0jPhsUD12GcZXHMjq+HSxhUBdPpp mVZaby2kWmAXIGWd045ixYg0KlyAItWK6utO3JFoN8NIYOPe5jzBqEMbJ3AbS5D/UTFp wHY/Xg1EBX7edgQN8NZJlUzssFXCreTK4fzxgCtx0gSTsT79MSGbCiwyZPI+4F8RIl5q xKfB5Tu/ursuWxxlXb6dXNuSy9FTa6hoXUqUdcMYZRO84uhObf/9el9p/WZr3/zGguET kLTw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.86.197 with SMTP id r5mr5544236obz.7.1331766770086; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.149.225 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F60B19D.3070408@stpeter.im>
References: <4F5ADDCA.80303@KingsMountain.com> <CACwuEiPuvW=DxpwHjcOMs+_T9-4YaBSMB+rm-1LX_nJoswk_qg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiQ1=c+Dr56jN02HCzVSUyUaFoLG96Aq=1Ru4sMFdttaA@mail.gmail.com> <CACwuEiNfA0waTd6ypLotg+=jus6N4JDw8F4T2o04hnfqTXNL1A@mail.gmail.com> <4F60968D.4020703@stpeter.im> <D50DAB3A-39D0-486F-A329-002DA3DE309A@tzi.org> <4F60B19D.3070408@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:12:50 +0700
Message-ID: <CACwuEiO27Egk3KV7dxQB3ei7YsM8-2Jmey2sFdYpzCLd4GsH5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Walter <walter.stanish@gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:12:51 -0000

>>> financial
>>> application protocols.
>>
>> Maybe I'm still struggling with the direction of this.
>> Is AMQP a financial application protocol?  0MQ?
>
> AMQP and 0MQ are used in the financial industry, but I don't think they
> are financial application protocols of the kind Walter seems to have in
> mind, such as:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iiban/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-imic/
>
> But perhaps he can explain more clearly.

AMQP and 0MQ are Message Queues.

Roughly (I'm no authority) MQ's are associated with finance for a few reasons:
 1. Message orientation
 2. Often good for building high availability systems on cheap
hardware (n:n topology support)
 3. Can be very low latency and bandwidth efficient
 4. (probably) 'Enterprise' cultural overhead

Code-wise, you can typically use the sockets interface to connect to
them but they have all sorts of their own options to expose their
flexibility.  Often reliability is optional - in part, it's this
ability to switch off the service guarantees provided by a standard
transport that lend these layers their power, the other side being
topology flexibility.

In any case, message queues definitely appear to be a (the?) primary
potential transport option for non "vendor locked-in" financial
systems today.

Hope that clarifies.

Regards,
Walter Stanish
Payward, Inc.