IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features)

William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@google.com> Wed, 28 August 2013 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC7911E80F5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 6Wd0qcztjGGr for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5002711E819E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1VEcSQ-0005tj-1o for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:54:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:54:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1VEcSQ-0005tj-1o@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1VEcSD-0005su-PQ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:54:21 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1VEcSC-0005Kr-SA for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:54:21 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id qa5so4351361ieb.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=AEMbHpptqq7uDe4eyZL/vCIsk7vrqggemHepPP+i7fM=; b=FAo0FbIXbJ3jP/bAIrfykmK+T0fdexbIaQf2Sr+QuFssHwZqgCwFD8jo6alUwinc+A ZL/nXzwoVVq4tzoGWF32QSQOfnY4OXv6C908kEADZUwmIiw/vpmOtAWb4yfJ66MzXvhK 4UlnLichhM2rXaxng8jPtVSEgrKukKhSkgFV2ITAMJD6o1RdXkNZCFOGbBwYT5O3gkyB OcoC8cS+kTlVdJT8xzOQ+e54RJ87Fu0viQiCNIqz0YQFtai3MUy7GnikMf/Jnz6hYKbs N69FIaUb9XxrD+Vz/76LAChgkuUJAPEsiPDEJfQNWGZaON5EHZ5DsuFotlQzk8i48XA6 t+cA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=AEMbHpptqq7uDe4eyZL/vCIsk7vrqggemHepPP+i7fM=; b=blBXeAEgSjSvwrSdNjmWeWmm3jWFzvFrFdMYssa0NTHFWgrWmwhxfrjELxEzF2TOcW lebJ04SJNX8qOTARopTFsmjFwZcQ6KQuAt9Hg/qOeQG7XMcDUEOogYRU1ddpj/4eyYIH fRfNjkWfCtc6O+Kgt2+Vy9cyWzCQkXd6R4UKouPzxQpnbqur+tGi9v7diWmeTsq46Dhh GnNFH6m5u0YQ4dEsji1oMJ37zeKfn8irL0leF5IbZv5tpttku/m9BlCT1j5fub1oz6cG HwM3YDNqbSgnPUfIe4YsNv4eZiStL5KpwqBJk1+Fptb4kskafijuHyc+UlJ3QMGgGkK2 HXRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnH7tN6x4svOawuW2scXW+Ppyd+Odxp8VvwCbzycrSUgkj6uEsOEYBo0uENbArR8qObbmaK04pDUm8yGTVQmX25WXmma1X+JaXGb3Gdc8zJ++kQzt7Sjg/3SI6zXU6uxUBEi4HxKJsSdIMPnFMrmPgXfu1FYhzzSUoqcBXrvmJ+Gw1zzz+TID5MbhFjqbIHyrnQQcfU
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.50.104 with SMTP id b8mr12101614igo.1.1377683634932; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.69.132 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.69.132 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: willchan@google.com
In-Reply-To: <2ADDC87F-8E20-4D7D-B0A0-20CE3DD12B81@ifi.uio.no>
References: <CAP+FsNeMqB0+igBZjjsT-Xb+17YdUyptBJ2N0x9_jaaLYzKisQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcvR5q3N2iLv6wM6LQXS72sg1pdvTWdU9rsSFAP8OHpwA@mail.gmail.com> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772111B7D710@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <CABaLYCuom7VH+9VJrbe7-D+S7YfGtbS59ne5fG03Zrm=U5tc0Q@mail.gmail.com> <081D0F76-F4AE-42D5-B354-795BE4910D23@lurchi.franken.de> <2ADDC87F-8E20-4D7D-B0A0-20CE3DD12B81@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:53:54 +0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYhK4TQNsYiemfDq5xVtxtmPV=suqteRUkb11r43ZxRHAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@google.com>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01183d16ac8b4b04e4fef70a"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=willchan@google.com; helo=mail-ie0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.512, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.511, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1VEcSC-0005Kr-SA 9998f17ce0f587f97816170635c4ceed
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAA4WUYhK4TQNsYiemfDq5xVtxtmPV=suqteRUkb11r43ZxRHAA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/19422
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Aug 28, 2013 4:01 PM, "Michael Welzl" <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree 100% with Michael Tuexen here... just one thing, in line:
>
>
>>> You're right, SCTP is non-deployable, which makes it a non-starter.
 SCTP also does not address handshake issues or TLS issues.
>>
>> I agree that SCTP over IP can't be deployed now due to missing NAT
support.
>
>
> Indeed that's not an argument against SCTP/UDP/IP, but I also wonder why,
instead of saying "can't be deployed", people don't just go ahead and use
it whenever it's there and works, with a fall-back to TCP? This could be
done with (this version of) Happy Eyeballs:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-tsvwg-happy-eyeballs-sctp-02
>
> Good reasons against doing this are... what? Anyone?

Implementation usefulness. Why bother adding code that barely gets used
(and that is unlikely to improve in the near future), adds complexity, code
bloat, etc...?

SCTP/UDP has a much higher likelihood of usefulness. But as Roberto has
mentioned, it still has deficiencies, mostly around RTTs (connection + DTLS
setup). If they can be fixed, great. Let's do it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email