IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: What is the long term plan for Internet evolution?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 29 June 2021 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 904F63A3FE8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 wl162z2qRDvE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ECF93A3FE7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05186389D9; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id OoeamPRybMOH; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:53:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE01F389D7; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:53:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4DF18DD; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:51:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: What is the long term plan for Internet evolution?
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgwwX4zhqqH27FtBEyKRn74BdunswpembR_O6R34vTuSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwiFajxuV3E_u7b-f=7DqTHXG_4Y=VLoCsUxknD_mCp1=Q@mail.gmail.com> <00722e06-a385-251c-d95d-2ff67e83f5c1@foobar.org> <CAMm+LwgwwX4zhqqH27FtBEyKRn74BdunswpembR_O6R34vTuSA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:51:53 -0400
Message-ID: <16008.1625010713@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uAGn9AKY4ehyRjUiKW_zvLh2g9I>
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, 29 Jun 2021 23:52:03 -0000

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
    > That is what a transaction is, right. Nope. Many of my transactions have
    > people in the middle of them making decisions or big compute loads. So in
    > the HTTP world we end up with

    > < C:Request, S:Ack, [C:Poll, S:Pending,] * C:Poll, S: Response>

    > That is plain ugly. The pattern I really want is:

    > < C:Request, S:Ack, S: Response>

    > There is no need to poll, just respond when finished. That might be
    > seconds, minutes, days or even years.

CoAP supports this.

    > For telemetry, the pattern I want is

    > < C:Config, S:Data, S:Data, S:Data, S:Data, S:Data, C:Config, S:Data,
    > S:Data, ...>

    > Again, this just doesn't fit onto the TCP or HTTP communication patterns
    > and it is not really something QUIC is designed for. Sure we could make do.
    > But I choose not to.

CoAP Observe does this.
CoAP works better without NAT because the NAT closes the subsequent S:Data in
many cases.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email