Re: [Spud] Bare-minimum PLUS (was Re: Thoughts on the privacy concerns expressed at the BoF)

Eliot Lear <> Fri, 29 July 2016 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0846012D0B0 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 05:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.808
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id klYoSBh2Zj3D for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 05:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D21D12B044 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 05:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2884; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469794703; x=1471004303; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=7/1kEY0c9rzIyxxdZ6FZlF0OX2NhvnIPoUmH/B8PKh4=; b=Z0PWWTSu+TvS/ESeDv7dDcv3vf5hTHLNVYRUI6eLJCggWBCogE2pKSXD Ah2Ffvuw2TPXyhA+ucz8l3irc+2KPvqOs3AjFrBLhlRzOuTtxgDXQxyY3 wB0S/pSzcGvYr6UgoDKygG+VecN4Wb269+PCs5Pp7KbvUnUquoofwfenq k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AXBgBmSJtX/xbLJq1dhEW3SoQMhh0Cg?= =?us-ascii?q?X4BAQEBAQFeJ4RdAQUjVhALGCoCAlcGAQwIAQEViBiuIo1wAQEBAQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBEQ6IIgiCTYdBgloBBJkzgzqBcIlUiVSFbJApVIISHBeBNzqIRAEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,439,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="639979851"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jul 2016 12:18:21 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6TCILnS029076; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:18:21 GMT
To: Tom Herbert <>, Dave Dolson <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:18:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="89CL9Bd4Xtpgcb70vaMWSpAFTWulw1Pim"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Erik Nygren <>, Kyle Rose <>, =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=c3=bchlewind?= <>, spud <>
Subject: Re: [Spud] Bare-minimum PLUS (was Re: Thoughts on the privacy concerns expressed at the BoF)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:18:25 -0000

Hi Tom,

Something that did not get brought up at the BOF is nagging at me...

On 7/28/16 8:17 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> The abstraction is only useful up to the point that networks preserve
> the model. If the network breaks the model in ad hoc ways that forces
> the application to try to compensate with more ad hoc mechanisms or
> just stop innovating altogether as we see happened with protocol
> ossification.

You write that as if it's a bad thing ;-)

Some amount of protocol ossification is a GOOD thing.  In particular,
the calling interface for transports needs to be stable or source code
will have no shelf life.  The fact that TCP's calling interface has been
SO stable for SO long has meant that a large code base did not require
substantial maintenance just to keep doing the same thing it was
doing.   I see this as an exercise to determine what needs ossification
and what does not, and there are extreme positions at both ends.