IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@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 CC7E71A6F34 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:29:45 -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 DOaiJHAdAPMA for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2FC21A7030 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1329; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428589776; x=1429799376; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=n/P4HcjV5ivTOZBXwVKEmVGO1aI30dmRICqBArD8050=; b=KE760rFsulULqLKGUiviPfK71G2TmJryNriomNG55I3fwOHdEuykF23J GIxg14O9LgasEMYmiMCPpmujuPcdodFMtY5sRaPw7kpMmNQIeFOyJ/nZs zUgNLDTi2CXMbmEt7680EHYt4qQxjeYdgAtZ1EwhLKWWUx7+d16vLx+i3 k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,550,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="423426802"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2015 14:29:34 +0000
Received: from [10.61.95.48] (ams3-vpn-dhcp7985.cisco.com [10.61.95.48]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t39ETXiL029559; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 14:29:34 GMT
Message-ID: <55268CCD.7080904@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:29:33 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.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> <DCB37ACE-C442-4236-9919-85E18EE160B2@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <DCB37ACE-C442-4236-9919-85E18EE160B2@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GwTwwm4KOCuuvc0xw87Sg2Dghq7vfOjTJ"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/YGmXNtcbjKSVisBsHYOv6WXmnVU>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.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 14:29:46 -0000


On 4/9/15 4:27 PM, Brian Trammell wrote:
>
> RFC 6951, though it uses a single well-known port for all encapsulated SCTP so is less suitable for userland implementations. You can stick DTLS on top of SCTP (RFC 6083) if you're okay exposing the transport headers, or SCTP on top of DTLS as in WebRTC data channels if not.

Meh.  If inetd could do it for TCP services...

Eliot

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email