Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the Internet Registry Information Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz)

Harald - you sure you are not talking about IETF Mail Servers?

Todd

-----Original Message-----
>From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>Sent: Aug 16, 2006 12:20 AM
>To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
>Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the	Internet Registry Information Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz)
>
>Andrew Newton wrote:
>>> 3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
>>>     various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
>>
>> TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP.  But for very short and quick answers 
>> (and lots of them, such as domain availability checks) UDP is better.  
>> Don't know what you mean by tricks, but the deflation is optional.
>my congestion control alarm went off.
>
>after reviewing the document, it's still ringing.
>
>There's nothing in the document that says "if you want to send 4000 
>requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should slow down 
>your sending rate to that server".
>
>The word "retransmit" does not occur in the document.
>The word "packet loss" does not occur in the document.
>The word "congestion" does not occur in the document.
>
>4000-byte UDP packets will have 3x the drop rate of 1500-byte UDP 
>packets. So retransmissions are more likely than with DNS over the same 
>wire. I can't envision an implementation of this that wouldn't 
>retransmit. So guidance is needed.
>
>Using UDP is fine, but I regard this specification as incomplete.
>
>                       Harald
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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