Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Fri, 23 September 2005 21:39 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EIvGb-00087k-Vl; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:37 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EIvGZ-000871-Tw for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:36 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16438 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EIvN1-0004EV-HN for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:46:20 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (adsl-71-131-47-236.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [71.131.47.236]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8NLcpvr016414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:38:51 -0700
Message-ID: <433475BD.1040605@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:38:05 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.4 (Windows/20050908)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>
References: <BF581557.AA8%mshore@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF581557.AA8%mshore@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Found to be clean
X-Songbird-From: dhc2@dcrocker.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Melinda, et al,

>> The term
>> "real-time" tends to mean sub-second, and often much faster than that.

Vernacular is not usually *more* precise.  Note that I cited (human) 
interactive vs. real-time, with whereas the usage you describe one terms that 
encompasses both.

The discussion at <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/realtime-computing/faq/> 
demonstrates that the term is indeed pretty fuzzy.

Still, yes, it's clear that recent use of the term real-time has tended toward 
the more generalized model in your description, referring to anything that is 
time bounded by external constraints.

For the proposed area, that does not seem to explain the inclusion of  ENUM, 
instant messaging or presence.  (This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)

Certainly none of those have performance constraints that are significantly 
different from DNS, HTTP, Telnet, SNMP or a number of other protocols.  Nor do 
they reflect a signaling/transfer model split, as per Ted's revised language.

So the technical basis for this new area remains fuzzy.


>     Whether through the
> use of physically separate networks or through engineered tunnels, things
> like voice are starting to run on at least logically isolated networks.

In which case this is not a new area, but is a new task force, since isolation 
means it is not part of the standard Internet architecture.

Either the effort needs to be seriously coordinated with the rest of the IETF 
work or it doesn't.  If it does, then particularly the infrastructure work 
needs to be done along with related infrastructure work.

Since the bulk of the basis for providing time-bounded response times is 
almost certain to involve underlying infrastructure changes, then either the 
changes must be done AS PART OF the full Internet infrastructure technologies, 
or it must be done as a completely separate community and service.

The idea that this new area will make changes to, say, IP, without being part 
of the Internet area just does not make sense.

d/

-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf