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
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Bryan Ford
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture John Leslie
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Joe Touch
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Thomas Narten
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Thomas Narten
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Dave CROCKER
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Melinda Shore
- [tae] sockets vs. fds Dave CROCKER
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture John Day
- Re: [tae] sockets vs. fds Melinda Shore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture John Day
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture John Day
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Dave CROCKER
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture John Day
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture John Day
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Thomas Narten
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Thomas Narten
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] sockets vs. fds Tony Finch
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture David W. Hankins
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [tae] sockets vs. fds Florian Weimer
- [tae] The Great Naming Debate (was Re: The intern… Bryan Ford
- Re: [tae] The Great Naming Debate (was Re: The in… Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The Great Naming Debate (was Re: The in… Joe Baptista
- Re: [tae] The Great Naming Debate (was Re: The in… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [tae] The Great Naming Debate (was Re: The in… Melinda Shore
- Re: [tae] The Great Naming Debate (was Re: The in… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [tae] The Great Naming Debate (was Re: The in… Keith Moore
- Re: [tae] The internet architecture John Leslie