IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] Return routability and feedback

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 11 August 2015 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.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 148001B2AB8 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 J9uhZp_PsZgQ for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 133AB1B2AB0 for <spud@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.187] ([128.9.184.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7BL1lkT018310 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=c3=bchlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
References: <1AFABFF2-B841-4B0D-867C-709683BEDC8D@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <55C9A2D5.9060304@kit.edu> <0F26B0A9-8042-472D-92B0-9D2822B5D1A3@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <55CA62B9.7000202@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:01:45 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0F26B0A9-8042-472D-92B0-9D2822B5D1A3@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/nDReujvOquqIKlVMmfe7P_8RDg4>
Cc: spud@ietf.org, touch@isi.edu
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 21:02:44 -0000


On 8/11/2015 2:38 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
>>> 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.

You might want to look at the Delta-T protocol if you're willing to let
time manage state this way.

Joe

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email