IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] TCP components

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Thu, 18 June 2015 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 ABD4D1A00F1 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 b4XbZVH0wuPU for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AF991A2130 for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B472D9315; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:48:12 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id NpeitZu-GorQ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:48:11 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [192.168.178.33] (x5f700897.dyn.telefonica.de [95.112.8.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BB93D9310; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:48:11 +0200 (MEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <5581B81B.4090500@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:48:12 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <725D4141-40AB-4E30-9409-96813C80905B@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/FzopC7ZmU8oU-oBVgSAqhWtQL2I>
Cc: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, "taps@ietf.org" <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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 Jun 2015 08:48:17 -0000

Hi Joe,

I believe the approach Michael is proposing is to look at existing APIs as a starting point; not only abstract APIs. The assumption is that someone who implemented/designed an API, thought that it would be worth to provide a configuration possibility to the higher layer. This assumption is more true for SCTP than for TCP because there are quite a few different TCP implementation that are grown over time. Quite often a new interface was only created because a new feature was added to TCP; and to be on the safe side we allow the user to turn it off again.

That’s the reason why I prefer the approach we are/I'm taking right now (analyzing components). I think we should still describe the abstract API of RFC793 (and we do) as well as the SCTP API of RFC4960 in this document, but I personally would not and will not spend too much time analyzing other API. However, everybody who has time and is interested in this can of course provide his/her outcome as input for this document and we will happily take it and compare it to what we have so far.

Mirja


> Am 17.06.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/17/2015 1:44 AM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> I think that this discussion with Joe maybe suffered from focusing on
>> TCP. 
> 
> To be fair, TCP has a simpler abstract API.
> 
>> SCTP is perhaps a better starting point because it supports
>> almost everything. 
> 
> IMO, that makes it very hard as a starting point, and I also think that
> TCP's variant of an API description is much better as an example.
> 
> E.g., Section 10 of RFC4960 claims it defines an abstract API
> (ULP-to_SCTP), but it begins by describing a call to initialize a data
> structure (INITIALIZE). That's decidedly NOT an abstract API; it's a
> generic description of an implementation issue.
> 
> IMO, if we don't understand the difference between the API in RFC793 vs.
> that in RFC4960 (and why 793 is a better example), then this is going to
> be a very bumpy road.
> 
> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email