IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Protocol design: the Gemini project

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 01 December 2020 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BD83A1420 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:27:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 m1NcaVuxYy4G for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (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 38F2D3A13F8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:27:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=VlWdvn2uCozkK6f/bHqnwvd59Y10sR7fa6oknvWMDco=; b=UR7H5zHEKxZ7IxBZ/nPoJ3SWD LaRuJ0XbK/DOYVAE2eqAjCJfKiQiU7ElHgPc62zkRyzaoMWOLapAbrBlxT4w0NOb9evH9bRr6Y787 z7MUGKNuzYif7nKforOcfx+NU7a6tXNmvxx2KrNfsGrxs5edcps9UiB0/Nnxw3N4SChCJhT7wnHci xg1UMxop5vhgxvVyEgQKPFlnnRz9JljmbRqLqOU8euBSgeUpbOQ8RR21NxUCuYAyLgrnsZ8ALWFzP reGsy7Gu21AZDdTdfKzgVt6h41E5Z3uF579mqjyz9BwxgJS2zjAn2w1IFo5C00m0gG3vEDAmmtfWy k5aVT8rug==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:49529 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1kkAMl-0026wJ-9t; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:27:12 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_59CEAA1A-8A59-4BF2-A0D2-E3150516811C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: Protocol design: the Gemini project
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwj9ecWvdjbPBwtuYYSEWLnracXgOKjTbFar8PGueRtfug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 10:27:06 -0800
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <3CBDBE28-2B8F-404F-BA0B-A645BA3DC805@strayalpha.com>
References: <20201130173714.GA15548@sources.org> <4B1B8D0E-52A6-4368-8964-43645ADD754A@strayalpha.com> <CAMm+Lwj9ecWvdjbPBwtuYYSEWLnracXgOKjTbFar8PGueRtfug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oFZSCeT8xJ-OnF_vLcO9Etbkxt8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 18:27:17 -0000

Speaking of false...

> On Dec 1, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> Having (re)implemented FTP for LIBWWW, I can assure you that it was done for very good reason.
> 
> FTP is not really an independent protocol. It is actually designed as a feature add on for Telnet. As a result, FTP is vastly less efficient than HTTP because you have two socket creations and teardowns per connection. 

FTP needs only N+1 connections per set of N transfers from a given site.

You should never need to close and reopen the control connection unless you leave the site.

> FTP requires multiple control plane interactions where HTTP requires only one.

You can specify an entire transfer with one command.

> FTP has no provision for transfer of metadata.

FTP has both records and data structures.

> FTP doesn't support proxying or caching, both of which were essential in the early Web when bandwidth was severely constrained.

FTP has third party transfers, which are a much more powerful mechanism than simply proxying. It can cache just like HTTP can (that’s an implementation issue) - and can prefetch too:
Touch, J; Farber, D: An Experiment in Latency Reduction <>. In: Infocom, pp. 175-181, IEEE, 1994.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email