IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] TCP components

Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com> Thu, 16 July 2015 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C5B1B372B for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 0qNKIRoKcP9X for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A57B91B372E for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so7755353igb.0 for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tieto.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dL6H4YJ4HnSFxjTEZKck2e+sRgAve008Se94iGgGci4=; b=3+6sjnlcPcC1GdfoSTRx/iZthl102dpITkJIFQPnr7sbSnuMUAtU79UlT9EemX7jH7 B5I1yyAQ4FB0/NkhlgbLoYSCxINO5uzQEsCoIejZdkvVnTMSpWS6QBAmjZDc2fjbhB8o +tPTrDK2TkOmXHMOKM65jUaVkxxA97t63+/r0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dL6H4YJ4HnSFxjTEZKck2e+sRgAve008Se94iGgGci4=; b=iGVRtYB4GMGEW1xevTl+R/EhZwResLvQzy241UCL3pIoiQ53R2Bd+Nq8cCQ0a1DZOa Ot3tdL8jUaFUPeQzZnxZJvxwJSErOlZI2aoNYUuYmmx9/BOEpsQsbi+/3yDxhl7kPudm F2XemUV2SStNPPwDsDjbxEZmFtQb2PUEWIEvYDBuesvX0qSo5phDjwfpGg4bYQvZEppH rXO3Sb2Juwzv31DhBD6DE56bEbe4JT6F2lbFWqYTV9rs2mEpXHVCvO+qu1aDAwV2ahDN HXzVnAa9BdA2l4VmWQKkqX7wb2rSkFZu2VFV7tAzDCqbDcnY1tnzPgo9PCR9EmZuiq9l 3kmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkK3VzWfHRnniQW580l7iz62Rsf/jA1BrzS5DdIYWrVwL5DWIrki021sh/NzkCuN9XfEq2djzn23VsgGGMug/yI2Ga5qyPEgr7DthESfSdTrRE0afw=
X-Received: by 10.50.143.37 with SMTP id sb5mr1685176igb.13.1437033445101; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
References: <5579768E.5060402@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <A3EF3A19-0E37-42E6-8D17-94164EBA7FDD@ifi.uio.no> <154FD7B7-9A01-43EC-927D-B9D71F1BC38D@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <57DC7DAB-7054-41BE-8515-626353782BBC@ifi.uio.no> <5581B81B.4090500@isi.edu> <725D4141-40AB-4E30-9409-96813C80905B@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <5a72988f46e4be6b26811213fcc4d99f@mail.gmail.com> <55A6A3C9.3040003@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <55A6A3C9.3040003@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIMzp8FqXoBXDicXbg77ws60nWQywLXHxAwAlSEXMwBP4SU2gKV6VB4AmKwcTcB5nTT9gHAucYsnO1DSlA=
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:57:24 +0200
Message-ID: <9ec98209ec4b692bf9c172eec0c86711@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-DomainID: tieto.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/5N5VtIqof_cABnBeRso9SUi15SU>
Cc: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, taps@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Taps] TCP components
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:57:27 -0000

HI,

I was thinking about the PUSH flag mainly.

In our socket api implementation we do not allow for set of PUSH in send
calls nor do we provide the PUSH flag indication upwards on the receiver
side.
I think that after RFC793 it has been clarified that TCP MAY allow for set
of PUSH flag in send() and MAY OPTIONALLY provide this information upwards
on the receiver side.
I think that it would be questionable to follow RFC793 wording here on
PUSH.

I have no much experience with the URGENT flag - we actually don't support
it, which I agree to be non-compliant.
Perhaps the API parts of RFC793 is right, whereas  it is only the function
as such that has been clarified later.

BR, Karen

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Taps [mailto:taps-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
>Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:18 PM
>To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen; Mirja Kühlewind
>Cc: Brian Trammell; taps@ietf.org; Michael Welzl; touch@isi.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taps] TCP components
>
>
>
>On 7/15/2015 2:03 AM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote:
>> HI Mirja, All
>>
>> Sorry for jumping late into this discussion.
>...
>> I really do not think that it makes much sense to look into outdated
>> and deprecated APIs as specified in RFC793 and RFC4960 when we have
>> better material available.
>
>What portion of RFC793's API do you consider outdated?
>
>AFAICT, it's exactly what most sockets try to support (I can't speak
about
>SCTP, as I haven't used it much).
>
>Joe
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taps mailing list
>Taps@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email