[SWMP] Re: faster field messages

john_patterson@us.ibm.com Wed, 29 August 2007 18:38 UTC

Return-path: <swmp-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQSR1-0003St-Iq; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:38:35 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQSQs-0003Pm-8Y for swmp@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:38:28 -0400
Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQSQr-0003ob-JY for swmp@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:38:26 -0400
Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com []) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7TIcEKb001486 for <swmp@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:38:14 -0400
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com []) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l7TIcEJ5465278 for <swmp@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:38:14 -0600
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback []) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com ( with ESMTP id l7TIcEdv029029 for <swmp@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:38:14 -0600
Received: from internet1.lotus.com (internet1.lotus.com []) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com ( with ESMTP id l7TIcDhs028999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:38:13 -0600
Received: from wtfmail02.edc.lotus.com (wtfmail02.lotus.com []) by internet1.lotus.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7TIcCT0004711; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:38:12 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <46D59A2D.1010404@mediamachines.com>
To: "Jay C. Weber" <jweber@mediamachines.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 August 18, 2005
Message-ID: <OF22534BB3.30CEF69F-ON85257346.00657073-85257346.0066585C@lotus.com>
From: john_patterson@us.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:38:51 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL02/WTF/M/Lotus(Build V703_08192007|August 19, 2007) at 08/29/2007 02:38:55 PM, Serialize complete at 08/29/2007 02:38:55 PM
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b
Cc: swmp@ietf.org
Subject: [SWMP] Re: faster field messages
X-BeenThere: swmp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of a Simple Wide-area Multiuser-3D Protocol <swmp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/swmp>, <mailto:swmp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/swmp>
List-Post: <mailto:swmp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:swmp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/swmp>, <mailto:swmp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1659825212=="
Errors-To: swmp-bounces@ietf.org


I have not been thinking about the whole issue of doing something on one 
channel and using it on another.  This will require careful thought, but 
it could be very important.

As I mentioned elsewhere 
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/swmp/current/msg00045.html) we 
might need to subscribe on a reliable channel for notifications that will 
be delivered on an unreliable channel.  This sort of semantic mixing of 
the multiple channels was not spelled out in the paper, nor is it 
addressed in my follow up.  (In fact, I assumed the channels were 
independent and could not use each other's information.)

We need to think this through.  It is likely to be difficult to get right. 
 Nevertheless, it might be exactly the sort of innovation that would make 
swmp invaluable.


"Jay C. Weber" <jweber@mediamachines.com> wrote on 08/29/2007 12:09:17 PM:

> john_patterson@us.ibm.com wrote:
> So each side gets to declare its own mapping and the other is 
> obligated to keep track of that.  Servers can use the same id for 
> everyone becasue they get to declare the id they'll use.  Can I 
> declare a mapping on a reliable channel (TCP) and use it on an 
> unreliable channel (UDP)?  That would be helpful, since the first 
> use establishing the mapping should be protected from loss. 

> Exactly the way I was thinking, the first message gets sent reliably
> and enables a stream of very-low-latency, potentially-unreliable, 
> jay
SWMP mailing list