Re: [hybi] Reliable message delivery (was Re: Technical feedback.)

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Mon, 01 February 2010 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.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 51DDD28C13C for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:33:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.896, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13]
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 IwQDe4V3QED6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:33:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (unknown [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC9528C197 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:33:17 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b85ae00000097d-77-4b672c9f04b2
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id D3.F4.02429.F9C276B4; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:33:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:33:50 +0100
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:33:50 +0100
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C7F2468; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:33:50 +0200 (EET)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545AD21A41; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:33:50 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04242219D2; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:33:49 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4B672C9D.9010205@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:33:49 +0200
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com>
References: <4B62C5FE.8090904@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4B62E516.2010003@webtide.com> <5c902b9e1001290756r3f585204h32cacd6e64fbebaa@mail.gmail.com> <4B636757.3040307@webtide.com> <8449BE19-3061-4512-B563-02973FBB707B@apple.com> <5c902b9e1001292310l5442d476n8375139f3480671b@mail.gmail.com> <26D406E7-2319-476E-9ADF-80D84200C270@apple.com> <5c902b9e1001292333k79569316lf371938c9aa766@mail.gmail.com> <128BFD31-9835-47B1-B7A9-F20F5CDA8D8C@apple.com> <20100130144936.GD19124@shareable.org> <5c902b9e1001301552n6efb7969o34110373e3ab4945@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5c902b9e1001301552n6efb7969o34110373e3ab4945@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2010 19:33:50.0881 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B4FD110:01CAA375]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Reliable message delivery (was Re: Technical feedback.)
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: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:33:20 -0000

just to make order in this particular thread discussion

as I understood, two different problems have been arised

1) "safely" shutdown a websocket connection.
      The possibility to lose data while closing a TCP connection is a 
well-known problem,
      as has also been discussed and described in the thread.

      Some people think there is a value to add to the spec gracefully 
shutdown the websocket connection.

      However I haven't seen a clear consensus on it.

      So please if you have an opinion on this, speak up!!!


2) what happen if/when the connection is lost; this can happen for 
several different reasons:
    e.g. a NAT restarting, the mobile terminal go out of network 
coverage etc.

     here we have different sub problems in my opinion:

     2.1) how detect as fast as possible that the connection has been lost

     2.2.) what to do after have reconnected.

     Are those something people think is important to spend cycles on??


cheers
/Sal



On 01/31/2010 01:52 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Jamie Lokier<jamie@shareable.org>  wrote:
>    
>> Orderly close does not help with network-level disconnects, so other
>> techniques like duplicate elimination are valuable too.
>>      
> True, but I think it's important that we - as a group - crawl before we run.
>
> I'd like to see consensus that orderly close is important and should
> be added and how we go about doing so in a sane way.
>
> If we can't even get buy-in for that, then other more advanced
> optimization techniques are likely to go nowhere as well.  -- justin
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>