IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] hum #3: Message

Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> Fri, 06 August 2010 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <pieterh@gmail.com>
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 E51853A6926 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 04:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 ee6XTdFadhdk for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 04:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83DA83A68C7 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 04:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so969520wwj.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=u50ITs7pncFr2CfxGhVueFizV5qFKTs8LR6zgNEqSsI=; b=pqdLOChykaJ36pyvmC+lKGXcWSI4eqM6bjI8Q2Gv8hZRJS7W1PhsYq3RLqOynUvb2Y tFD0c6nuPNQnP4QUqzgsDAKdq14N0fLapLEpx/sS2A3MdtzDBN3IDk1oM7S2vUJeUo2H QaZ571zgYryUchTLH7JTqXVkKzkBnc/7k4bY4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=Wnm4s7RFpUP8kWfGwYdJd2JNMVs/eZVuytCMRszR+/L3a4SrK05zFXz/MBOAQIXQWi xSSye2fc6wSi08UXb2RTAabL7W3N2T7wN6ZuXcs9RfTZ8AIZW7XNFqA5VLl6hZ1dOOkq ziGskVuMcVkVlhLYnJO60FrC/WUk26fQHXm34=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.164.9 with SMTP id b9mr790177wel.35.1281094522999; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: pieterh@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.80.15 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 04:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.80.15 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 04:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinXLPmBACd3ji0V9wkAWmxOR7qBMED19KKMvJrd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4C5AE93D.4040803@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051758290.5947@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <AANLkTik0kbh14s2JZARY2MFh0iNGV7H+B4Px4yG+wX44@mail.gmail.com> <71BCE4BF-D3F6-4F94-BE76-306BDF6A2E67@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051930160.5947@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4C5B1695.6070704@gmx.de> <F8E2F702-9F74-4316-B3B2-D5A731409ABF@apple.com> <AANLkTin=gO9D8K5NVhqCRKki-jrDmTYqF-gBjp9X41GN@mail.gmail.com> <4C5BF15E.1090608@noemax.com> <AANLkTinXLPmBACd3ji0V9wkAWmxOR7qBMED19KKMvJrd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:35:22 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: RzH66Hyk_HVM-LksLbAeAVprMgs
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=RWdqDDgy24C6qtUSr+5R5p=P15B=+aUZuE16Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
To: Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e649c9eaf79389048d260f0e"
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] hum #3: Message
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: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:34:54 -0000

I don't think this is accurate. Framing is to allow the reading of messages
by a layer that does not need to know their semantics. Also to allow
preallocation and protection against overflows. Fragmentation is to allow
long messages to be handled in smaller buffers. I think in all cases we can
assume the sender knows the length upfront.

- Pieter

On Aug 6, 2010 1:26 PM, "Arman Djusupov" <arman@noemax.com> wrote:

Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>
> Agree with both these points.  If a sender does fragment a large
> messag...
If the sender knows the size of the message upfront then there is no point
to fragment it. The sender can just specify the total length of the message
and keep pumping data into the connection, while the reader can count the
received bytes and so know where the message ends. The whole reason of
having fragmentation and framing is to remove the need to know the full size
of the message prior to sending it.
Arman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email