Re: [arch-d] FYI: closure of the IAB Stack Evolution program

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 26 August 2019 05:24 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F427120827 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cobSNSVAZ4Dq for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 931D1120826 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=grhHQvmCqt6fbWK8Qej2IcGum5bDZrUarLtxWVbWryg=; b=trkliqQYGo42ruDuFpUH/KdHn wA4GUjuPqF8qHbHi/mzH+p5F63MU2i1s0cAbiQBxOfGnKCJT+dXsEHmC1a7iqgiBvvf9Hvcj0FhbM 2dRJgwQwH1NeqZHo0prlf8RDcr/p2/vSKEsZyZWSyKoYG05Vs1OjXTZ35+yFZjSHaf0WGCjUjL/6H rw1RLcTp3kKdhitAbSonEZuWArKjP3ID8r2/Cv8Zqad9p4SuR5bKAKi8uJPSDyCez3NNWY68nkpEL eJrlZgrc5o1uCJaQCHQ62jgG638c6Bn5e+y19jjpiIdP0Pgngj5+FCHiy/3wXYrdFgzzYuQOeSCkD kpG0Byx4w==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:61208 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1i27UH-000qIN-3d; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 01:24:21 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E0465512-2EBA-42E8-9C8A-25BD5C3E41A6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <37056715-b52e-8fbe-ac0c-a2caefdb94bf@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:24:15 -0700
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
Message-Id: <19B905FF-B09D-4D60-AB93-3D8ACCD7BB04@strayalpha.com>
References: <B5A0F4E0-D437-4DF9-9918-C35627A8CADC@trammell.ch> <d5009253-4884-9f1f-66e7-1159e85524b9@si6networks.com> <770822F2-688F-44EA-A6A1-7E7EDBFAA989@trammell.ch> <cece8133-6b69-a677-52fc-a7fb4c7d5136@si6networks.com> <64E3A59C-8709-41E0-B74F-C036E4481AE4@apple.com> <f3645e11-d823-4308-3f51-6f2da5e33180@si6networks.com> <87imqnvhui.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net> <CA+9kkMDWk3kmYOZ8Zz+BjUZG0+sshQJjR9pYt-NgL8umqpMtWQ@mail.gmail.com> <eb2bc35f-ea95-69b9-5163-baded0c47478@si6networks.com> <19058eaf-47e9-7cac-bf34-cfef646a9bd6@huitema.net> <01b1dcd9-1acf-784e-1b71-f6e497a2f472@si6networks.com> <F9D68FFD-9B60-4CAF-A9F6-039B2C957FD2@strayalpha.com> <37056715-b52e-8fbe-ac0c-a2caefdb94bf@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/BA3-0CMmC2n9Dpams1ljO4UCJWw>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] FYI: closure of the IAB Stack Evolution program
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 05:24:23 -0000

The only thing QUIC doesn’t do is demux via a single field of the IP header called “protocol”.

So?

Maybe this is a good thing - maybe it just goes to show middleboxes how incapable they are at actually knowing what’s going on.

Joe

> On Aug 25, 2019, at 10:19 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 26/8/19 07:45, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> If IP is Internet, and QUIC is transport, what do you call the UDP that
>>> stis in between?
>> 
>> Therein lies the error.
>> 
>> QUIC alone is not a transport.
>> 
>> It’s not complete enough to be transport by itself. It doesn’t provide
>> the socket (as in RFC793’s idea of a socket) demuxing.
>> 
>> IMO, QUIC + UDP is a transport layer. A layer that provides a more
>> complex service than UDP alone.>
>> So yes, UDP is a transport layer - when operating by itself. But when
>> paired with QUIC, it is the pair that are the transport.
> 
> Maybe one of the underlying issues here is that one would normally
> expect one transport service as a single layer (i.e. protocol layer).
> But since this is not feasible in the current Internet, you get two
> protocol layers to offer a transport service you'd normally implement in
> a single one.
> 
> i.e., for QUIC you need two protocols to implement a specific transport
> service. You use one transport protocol (UDP) that doesn't provide the
> service you want (but get the packets through), and then stack abother
> protocol on top of it, that does all that is missing.
> 
> So I'd argue that it is correct that you can implement new transport
> *services*. However, the statement that you can deploy new transport
> *protocols* seems to be misleading (you're actually relying on a very
> simple transport protocol, and use its services as a building block for
> implementing a different transport service). This is what my original
> message tried to point out.
> 
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492