IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Fri, 20 August 2010 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mcmanus@ducksong.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 0A5C53A6A09 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 FmYMqicJM45D for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode.ducksong.com (linode.ducksong.com [64.22.125.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15C93A67B4 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by linode.ducksong.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C2EE4102A9; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.16.214] (cpe-67-253-92-25.maine.res.rr.com [67.253.92.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linode.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6CEA10157; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
To: Francis Brosnan Blázquez <francis@aspl.es>
In-Reply-To: <1282245566.10518.11.camel@tot.local>
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> <1282245566.10518.11.camel@tot.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:27:57 -0400
Message-ID: <1282314477.2266.10.camel@tng>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3
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: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:27:26 -0000

On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 21:19 +0200, Francis Brosnan Blázquez wrote:
>  As you
> know, good protocol design is based on function delegation: each layer
> makes a particular defined function.
> 

I don't agree with such a broad brushed statement like that at all.
Layers are a convenient way to think about things, but truly layered
implementations are almost always inferior.

See varghese's _network algorithmics_ for an amazing treatment of the
topic.
(http://www.amazon.com/Network-Algorithmics-Interdisciplinary-Designing-Networking/dp/0120884771/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282314428&sr=8-1 )

Protocol designers might use layers as a useful way to articulate the
protocol, but it is incumbent on us to consider all the various
requirements of different implementation scenarios. That often means
layering violations in practice. And that's ok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email