IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com> Thu, 19 August 2010 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <fenix@google.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 5B8983A68D4 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 KKyUUiCsW3B8 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C293A6890 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.83]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o7JJZtFe022307 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:35:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1282246555; bh=NV4XJmEO1+W2ykHBTHZF+0nuOG4=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=fo5etdkFPzRi87gt+yOGTOslaGcBl1wJcNcgjxNs3lHN9DlArfxnJ9nZlLEM2mxy3 Fk6XB0nUk/qkHE6jxngOA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=ZcOk9uhoKxHikXbUHM8eZ4t91dMh+KjHaLqaXsRXzTs2WBvl4EDAw0Qd1xIWODNWp ZnzxLebcHM5xJCNk/m/yQ==
Received: from gxk9 (gxk9.prod.google.com [10.202.11.9]) by kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o7JJZY68024138 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:35:54 -0700
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so1170666gxk.28 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.53.21 with SMTP id b21mr475844yba.353.1282246553805; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.95.11 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
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>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:35:53 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinVvxspzYQkjVsir9cpcRXQGq=juqvypg1_QArJ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>
To: Francis Brosnan Blázquez <francis@aspl.es>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd308005aa665048e324aff"
X-System-Of-Record: true
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 20:07:41 -0000

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Francis Brosnan Blázquez
<francis@aspl.es>wrote:

> 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.
>

If that is all WS supplies, why are we even bothering? Security?
We could easily decide to just forgo message framing too. That can be done
in a sub protocol!

-=R


> --
> Francis Brosnan Blázquez <francis@aspl.es>
> ASPL
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email