IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] SPUD's open/close are unconvincing

Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFC01A6F1E for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 5LxxkHzS3Ub6 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272CF1A6F17 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1000; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428589292; x=1429798892; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Xw/dTNQG8Jz0rYhcuqiIWWN/VBsp/lDhopA399Aa/8k=; b=g3Mn23g8ZYpXQz6hbh64GyYnyEvuJRn5tt4pn946phma48YyrLJsNC6u 6fgtIE5mDRTkPfu+lBpmmlpt9AH1PWoq7w+P80PhMMnInd7ML/zbu2W3K Ug8JRFcsQfWr7WjmdOxYUyh176EqSP0iZF/ko3CmKBmRuguJOQz5Izu/S M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BMBACgiiZV/5JdJa1cgwhSxR4Jh1ACgT44FAEBAQEBAQF9hB8BAQEDATo/EAsYCSUPBUkuiAcIzVgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXiyuEMUsHhC0BBIsnj10BgR2GH40pIoQPHoJ0AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,550,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="139680730"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2015 14:21:31 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t39ELU7m013650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 14:21:31 GMT
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t39ELUoV012247; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:21:30 -0700
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id t39ELT4d012246; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:21:29 -0700
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:21:29 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Message-ID: <20150409142129.GM24286@cisco.com>
References: <87iod631nv.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <DM2PR0301MB06555C7D7F32A69214405D44A8FC0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20150408193920.GD24286@cisco.com> <871tju2rdq.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <20150409012229.GG24286@cisco.com> <CALx6S35NH9yPZxeARTic10b0jFEi8aC4Gmt79cxuzF_VpYYqLA@mail.gmail.com> <20150409041507.GJ24286@cisco.com> <CAMm+LwgD8Foe=JdJvZ4oeuhGkJJvUaNOsCJATGDsRmBwN4en_w@mail.gmail.com> <20150409135509.GK24286@cisco.com> <CAMm+LwgaezT3mzbJQptrL2b7w=e7ubEdohsUoTxsFXgGzcDgJA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgaezT3mzbJQptrL2b7w=e7ubEdohsUoTxsFXgGzcDgJA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/-Xrd7AheIElWPW515d3QzHcP7XE>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] SPUD's open/close are unconvincing
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:21:39 -0000

On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:09:32AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The current trend is actually in the opposite direction. On Windows
> the HTTP server is an O/S resource and user mode processes bind to
> specific URL paths. This allows different Web services to be
> implemented in completely separate processes.

But sharing the same transport stack ;-)

> > What's missing from SCTP ?
> 
> Quite, do we have the opportunity for a quick fix here? If SCTP has
> already done all the necessary design work, can we just bolt that on
> top of UDP in place of IP and declare a quick victory?

You should talk to the SCTP folks or read the specs. I am not
on top of the details but i think it does a lot of what you ask.
For me, userland eg: SCTP would be a pre-requisite to make a solution like
SPUD successful, not an argument to not do SPOD. See my mail where i
was trying to explain the three layers of the transport stack
as i would like to see it.

Cheers
    Toerless

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email