Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBB711E8095 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.023
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.424, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXbp4-1Dg657 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0D611E808B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=1085; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311124432; x=1312334032; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=itZYBMtdw1ft+LeH7C8b6CPjFCNw+w7ou/4phnxGEus=; b=UsLUpeT/r/8Fs/Qc3j/QzxBE/bHkec/hBuL+46kCwq9TK/IL9Y7LX/Jx J1onjOkYC9q4XtSzY9C9U9b1EY4LSCu89kJJ5hCHa9Ij4g9mUBwW+f6p3 TZYlttGqBDm1onG5LhONCCS6kRJGERWETeQ6MTy61vNqKTuYXF9ZcTTJM g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAHkrJk6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABUp1t3iHylY55IhV1fBIdUixSFBIt2
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,231,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="4548887"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2011 01:13:51 +0000
Received: from [10.21.86.37] ([10.21.86.37]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6K1DoZj010091; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:13:51 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E24AF7C.4080604@jesup.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:13:50 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB57E808-FB8D-41D7-90C6-0EA1051629A8@cisco.com>
References: <4E0832FE.7010401@ericsson.com> <4E1DC07B.7000807@ericsson.com> <D1BE71E1-4F3B-474E-8A28-AA53CE6B684E@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMCJiE+bfEqZzOBo46aXVH-H2sehHh6UJv3tVdJKGjaokQ@mail.gmail.com> <49CD37FC-7951-45A0-84C4-A443F8B151F3@cisco.com> <4E24AF7C.4080604@jesup.org>
To: Randell Jesup <randell1@jesup.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:13:53 -0000

On Jul 18, 2011, at 15:11 , Randell Jesup wrote:

> All that said - yes, there are complexity issues to consider, which was why I was suggesting leveraging
> an existing tunneled protocol like SCTP or even TCP-over-UDP.

I agree with bunch of what you are saying but the previous several times I've seen the use SCTP over UDP conversation, it usually ends about the point the we ask for a user land implementation. Whatever we do more or less has to be user land or already exist in the OS that people run browsers on. 

If someone has a user land implementation of SCTP or TCP, I imagine that might change the outcome a bit from previous times. I have not looked at the TCP over UPD library Justin mentioned but, at casual glance, I noticed is around 400 lines of code which is very small, which is cool. But given the lines of code in say the BSD TCP stack, it does make me wonder what's missing. That said, I don't think we need something with the perforce of the BSD TCP stack as long as what is there is TCP friendly and robust.