Re: [ietf-smtp] lounging around

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 03 January 2020 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB97120867 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:02:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SVJEsVGka19G for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBBC912009E for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 003J3fBr011357 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:03:42 -0800
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20200103180329.E599B11F073A@ary.qy>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <d65cff14-ef13-136b-3607-0c059f0ffcea@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:02:41 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200103180329.E599B11F073A@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/Y6i8XTdbI1pYk1FUtKd8IDNjuQM>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] lounging around
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:02:51 -0000

On 1/3/2020 10:03 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Utterly irrelevant to mail, but see this quite charming cartoon
> about by Charles and Ray Eames about the wonders of mobile lounges:


Wow.  I'd never seen that.  Besides being charming it does a nice job of 
giving an extensive bit of thoughtful analysis.

That it entirely missed the security requirements we now have isn't all 
that surprising, although it dramatically altered things in the main 
building.  More significant to me is that it missed the performance 
concerns over loading in a single, undifferentiated batch.

It turns out this is relevant to s/f networking, and the difference 
between switches that do output of a packet while still doing input of 
it -- giving delays measured in a small number of bit-times, versus ones 
that have to buffer the entire packet before being able to send it -- 
giving much larger delays, as well as needing substantial buffer storage...

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net