Re: [tae] [tsv-area] Transport negotiation

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 10 December 2008 00:34 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 4BB613A6B51; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:34:34 -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 EC7573A6B51; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:34:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 8Q7VZ3iTwKaw; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1853A6921; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-106-119-240.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.119.240]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBA0Y9kn006524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <493F0E81.3010304@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:34:09 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
References: <3BB334D8-B00C-48C1-ACBF-4D09576DEADF@mpi-sws.org> <492C7F97.3030000@isi.edu> <EDCC4CF2-DC3C-409F-8F99-3BE51BAE4111@surrey.ac.uk> <492DE8AD.1090300@isi.edu> <7DA33930-1767-492B-807E-7A7DA661AFE9@apple.com> <5AE49824-74B1-4ABE-BBD4-7DEAFA348245@apple.com> <3F1AB633-7E17-47C4-B126-D8D872B552C5@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F1AB633-7E17-47C4-B126-D8D872B552C5@apple.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tae@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tae] [tsv-area] Transport negotiation
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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stuart (et al.),

Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> On 3 Dec, 2008, at 13:57, james woodyatt wrote:
>> The "transport layer" is identified by the upper layer protocol header
>> at the end of the extension header chain of the inner-most
>> encapsulated IP packet.
> 
> 
> This might be a fine answer to the question, "What is the transport
> layer?" on the mid-term exam for an introductory undergraduate
> networking class.
> 
> The notion of layers in networking is an artificial simplifying
> assumption introduced to help us think about software design (and to
> help ISO divide their people up into seven committees).

That's one perspective; I have another, e.g.:
http://www.isi.edu/rna/

This is somewhat similar to John Day's view on layering.

...
> Bryan Ford's excellent "Breaking Up the Transport Logjam" presentation
> pointed out that what we call the "transport layer" artificially takes
> three functions (demux, flow control, and operational abstraction) and
> lumps them together in what we traditionally call "transport layer",
> while leaving out other functions (session, presentation, etc.) and
> artificially deeming them to be "not transport layer". 

His approach doesn't consider that these features exist at other layers.
All layers are capable of:
	state coordination (soft, hard, etc.)
	flow control
	error recovery
	order restoration
	multiplexing/demultiplexing
	framing
	security
	etc.

What distinguishes layers, IMO, is scope and the relation to the
services it requires a-priori. I don't consider the above the unique
purvue of the transport layer, to be sure.

Joe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkk/DoEACgkQE5f5cImnZrvSqQCgiDA0a6+ggbt/3e2HhZPId4oW
r7kAoLaeHwY9OyQr0CVB4L1WDm7iVhjF
=5fs4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tae mailing list
tae@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae