IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] how do we move forward on agreeing on framing?

Francis Brosnan Blázquez <francis@aspl.es> Thu, 19 August 2010 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <francis@aspl.es>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6753A68D0 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.584
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 3lPuRKTFlhkT for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.aspl.es (196.Red-212-170-101.staticIP.rima-tde.net [212.170.101.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5AF3A68AB for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87E41170002; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:19:24 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at aspl.es
Received: from mail.aspl.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dolphin.aspl.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vq9D6V2zBHAC; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:19:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.153] (unknown [89.7.176.101]) (Authenticated sender: acinom) by mail.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BE7E51170001; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:19:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Francis Brosnan Blázquez <francis@aspl.es>
To: Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinst1+-iTjJXfBypoOjwc+QNdVt85QopdM9w4nZ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTineuhvGsC_vca6AiAX8OmHdkE-7s7rA1DQtjtMm@mail.gmail.com> <1282231803.22142.649.camel@vulcan.aspl.local> <AANLkTim44=x0BRpF3BYMqS9GNzHA+icG818JgfRRaFPT@mail.gmail.com> <1282238100.22142.732.camel@vulcan.aspl.local> <AANLkTinst1+-iTjJXfBypoOjwc+QNdVt85QopdM9w4nZ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Organization: ASPL
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:19:26 +0200
Message-Id: <1282245566.10518.11.camel@tot.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] how do we move forward on agreeing on framing?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:18:54 -0000

Hi Roberto,

> I don't think that is the case since I'm likely to have to
> load-balance millions or billions of connections and not have the
> ability to modify or place interesting requirements on the servers
> while remaining competitive.

While I see interesting the case you are exposing (zillions of
connections), it does not make it a representative case at all. As you
know, good protocol design is based on function delegation: each layer
makes a particular defined function.

I still believe WS should focus more on transport features and let
application protocols on top of it to complete the work....

...because it will be always better than any solution worked by the WG.
In other words: let the people to choose what to place on top of WS.
-- 
Francis Brosnan Blázquez <francis@aspl.es>
ASPL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email