IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] Return routability and feedback

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu> Tue, 11 August 2015 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.bless@kit.edu>
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 B522D1A8A13 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 06:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 BWXEQ5PIlqac for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 06:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (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 BE5121A8A0D for <spud@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 06:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1ZP9HW-0002c4-Fs; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:07:54 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 662C5B005D2; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:07:54 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <55C9F3AA.4090505@kit.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:07:54 +0200
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <1AFABFF2-B841-4B0D-867C-709683BEDC8D@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <55C9A2D5.9060304@kit.edu> <0F26B0A9-8042-472D-92B0-9D2822B5D1A3@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <0F26B0A9-8042-472D-92B0-9D2822B5D1A3@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1439298474.
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/5LNwFC348nrgIexY6kQ8aP5N8PE>
Cc: spud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Spud] Return routability and feedback
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:07:57 -0000

Hi Mirja,

Am 11.08.2015 um 11:38 schrieb Mirja Kühlewind:
>>> c) Is a stop flag needed/useful? —> Yes (faster state tear-down),
>>> but the overlying protocol must be resilient to it not being
>>> sent, not being received.​
>> 
>> I don't understand this, is that different from a close?
> 
> No, it’s close. The question is do we need an explicate signal for
> close (and maybe even close/ack) or is it sufficient to just let the
> state time out because middleboxes anyway need a timer as they can
> never rely on seeing a close.

SPUD doesn't make much sense without a close. I understood that
one advantage of SPUD would be the explicit state teardown indication
without waiting for a (non-uniform) timeout. However, SPUD doesn't
make the timer obsolete.

Regards,
 Roland

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email