Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP
Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com> Fri, 02 July 2010 15:44 UTC
Return-Path: <zach@sensinode.com>
X-Original-To: core@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A4A3A67F0 for <core@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 08:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.179
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0DyQp+VwEl3Z for <core@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 08:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69883A6452 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (line-7650.dyn.kponet.fi [85.29.76.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o62FieRG029012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 18:44:40 +0300
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
In-Reply-To: <002c01cb19f6$5dc85390$1958fab0$@sturek@att.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:44:41 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C5252DEC-C9DE-4DF9-83B7-1897B44817E7@sensinode.com>
References: <8977BB27-E20B-4CA6-BB4A-655984542574@oracle.com><003001cb19c8$69df0c10$3d9d2430$@moritz@uni-rostock.de><FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37306DCB52C66@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <004301cb19d1$17ae4fb0$470aef10$@moritz@uni-rostock.de> <A61BB3A241E6E64D86C58237F6DC1A18030C2AAC@ALPMLVEM04.e2k.ad.ge.com> <002c01cb19f6$5dc85390$1958fab0$@sturek@att.net>
To: d.sturek@att.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: core@ietf.org, L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:44:40 -0000
Please read http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-eggert-core-congestion-control-00.txt and then let's talk more about this, I found this a very useful draft. I think we all agree that features for rate control, congestion control and reliability that suit our charter requirements are needed. Regarding TCP we already had WG consensus to remove that from the scope of our work for now. Zach On Jul 2, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Robby, > > Agree completely on flow control in TCP. > > I guess my point is almost immediately after finishing CoAP over UDP, we > will begin to add back features of TCP. I would list > fragmentation/reassembly, guaranteed delivery and flow control into that > list. > > Don > > > -----Original Message----- > From: core-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Services) > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 6:46 AM > To: Guido Moritz; L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk > Cc: core@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP > >> The last thing is the flow control/sliding window stuff. I think we > will not >> really need this in CoAP due to quite small receive/send buffers > implied by >> the resource constraints. > > I think its useful to discuss flow control and congestion control > separately (they are, in fact, quite different). > > I agree that many of the existing TCP congestion control algorithms have > less-than-ideal behavior on wireless meshes, for instance. I further > agree that if we keep the number of packets low and avoid links that > have other flows, we may be able to get away with some less > sophisticated congestion control algorithms for CoAp. > > Flow control, on the other hand, may be quite useful for constrained > devices. As an example, my understanding is that the TCP flow control > logic was intended to prevent more constrained devices from being > overwhelmed by less constrained devices. TCP's advertisement of > essentially free buffer space in the receiver is one useful way to > achieve flow control. I would suggest we not dismiss such functionality > as even amongst constrained devices some devices may be able to process > 2 packets whereas another device may be able to process 3. > > - Robby > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > core@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core > > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > core@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core -- Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" Mobile: +358 40 7796297
- [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Vipul Gupta
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Zach Shelby
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Services)
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Richard Kelsey
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Zach Shelby
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Don Sturek
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Paul Duffy
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Zach Shelby
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Services)
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Gilman Tolle
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Services)
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Guido Moritz
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Guido Moritz
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP L.Wood
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Zach Shelby
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Guido Moritz
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Zach Shelby
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Don Sturek
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Zach Shelby
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Don Sturek
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Zach Shelby
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Don Sturek
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Services)
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Ralph Droms
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Ralph Droms
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP L.Wood
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Don Sturek
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Richard Kelsey
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Peter Bigot
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Ralph Droms
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Zach Shelby
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Richard Kelsey
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Geoff Mulligan
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Oflynn, Colin
- Re: [core] CoRE v/s Compressed HTTP Carsten Bormann