Re: [tae] sockets vs. fds

Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com> Fri, 05 December 2008 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tae-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tae-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tae-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA57E3A6C95; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:40:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tae@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tae@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323C83A6817; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:26:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dmx8qQFAlI5u; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303A63A6768; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:26:45 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,721,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="30109863"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2008 15:26:37 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB5FQbge007602; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:26:37 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB5FQbJA008643; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:26:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:26:37 -0500
Received: from 10.98.54.222 ([10.98.54.222]) by xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:26:37 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.13.0.080930
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:26:35 -0500
From: Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <C55EB25B.1846%mshore@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: sockets vs. fds
Thread-Index: AclW7duztcolt0jWQ3eLItZ5V0SoIA==
In-Reply-To: <4939462B.20103@dcrocker.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2008 15:26:37.0418 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD24BCA0:01C956ED]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=977; t=1228490797; x=1229354797; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mshore@cisco.com; z=From:=20Melinda=20Shore=20<mshore@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20sockets=20vs.=20fds |Sender:=20 |To:=20Dave=20Crocker=20<dcrocker@bbiw.net>; bh=gj01xnvCnGxf+J/Y2P/PofmdfzWUCG64aMfds2pTViw=; b=V17bHycgU/qNY1F15QbnSTm2nR9a91PMjkKK4/qQBjdb6Lih4iDunaHgPj mQH1EJ26nYP3D1nlh5svxszkCPin7eBO59dSuiRDilRt+vM0bFSIcoZnrbTS 5+KxLNq99N;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=mshore@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:40:50 -0800
Cc: tae@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Bryan Ford <brynosaurus@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tae] sockets vs. fds
X-BeenThere: tae@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Architecture Evolution <tae.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae>, <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/tae>
List-Post: <mailto:tae@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae>, <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tae-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tae-bounces@ietf.org

On 12/5/08 10:18 AM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> It's possible that this represents insight worth sharing broadly,

I doubt that very much, since it's really about API
design and ideological purity and I think has had only
a negligible impact on deployability, but
 
> It isn't immediately obvious to me why file descriptors would have had a major
> impact, so can you elaborate?

I don't think they have.  "Unix" (whatever that means
for the purpose of discussion) was designed around a few
abstractions, like pipes, filedescriptors, and processes,
and by the time IP was implemented we'd pretty much settled
on filedescriptors as endpoints for communications.  We
could do things with them like i/o redirection, etc., and
sockets are something else entirely.  That is to say,
in Unix we shouldn't care whether an input or output
stream is a terminal, a file, or a network data stream,
but because of sockets we do have to care.

Melinda

_______________________________________________
tae mailing list
tae@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae