IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EME] Re: transport recovery at the APP layer ?

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 17 November 2006 16:48 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gl6tf-000204-6R; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:48:59 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gl6te-0001w4-7Z for eme@irtf.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:48:58 -0500
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gl6tH-0003u8-4C for eme@irtf.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:48:58 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (priras01.isi.edu [128.9.176.219]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kAHGmI7Y026417; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:48:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <455DE7D1.6030805@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:48:17 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [EME] Re: transport recovery at the APP layer ?
References: <E6F7A586E0A3F94D921755964F6BE00662575C@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu> <455B4094.1080400@isi.edu> <455B472A.9000303@wanadoo.fr> <455B48BD.5050201@isi.edu> <455B56C9.7080307@rd-iptech.com> <455B6358.4000703@isi.edu> <455C38AC.1090306@rd-iptech.com> <455CDFFF.8000500@isi.edu> <455D9BD5.7000900@wanadoo.fr> <1163775763.8736.114.camel@sioux.systems.cs.cornell.edu> <c70bc85d0611170827t36b9443fm2b5581721142b769@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c70bc85d0611170827t36b9443fm2b5581721142b769@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: eme <eme@irtf.org>, Rémi Després <remi.despres@wanadoo.fr>
X-BeenThere: eme@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: end-middle-end research group <eme.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/eme>
List-Post: <mailto:eme@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1457642542=="
Errors-To: eme-bounces@irtf.org


Mark Baker wrote:
> On 11/17/06, Saikat Guha <saikat@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>> TCP can only provide guarantees about TCP, and not the application above
>> it.
> 
> Thank you.  I was just writing a message which was going to say exactly
> that.
> 
> While it's certainly true that applications are free to attribute
> application layer semantics to transport layer signals (e.g. HTTP
> 1.0), it is not the case that all applications do so (e.g. HTTP 1.1).

If you're referring to persistent connections, that predated 1.1 as an
add-on to 1.0 (though not in the base 1.0).

HTTP isn't the only application around, as you note. Unless this RG is
focused on HTTP interactions with middleboxes, it needs to consider the
impact on all applications.

Joe


_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email