[Taps] Comments on draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00

gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Fri, 26 June 2015 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 B4B3D1A1B3C for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 i0vMrWGOueQQ for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58521A1B2E for <taps@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (galactica.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.210.32]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 888831B001BE; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:22:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 212.159.18.54 (SquirrelMail authenticated user gorry) by erg.abdn.ac.uk with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:21:31 +0100
Message-ID: <734fb5eae22df80e67a71fde5ad74204.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:21:31 +0100
From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
To: taps@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/M5JZYm7DbmvKbQCEgVeKUnfdlIM>
Cc: stein@ifi.uio.no, michawe@ifi.uio.no
Subject: [Taps] Comments on draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00
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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:22:43 -0000

Thanks for submitting this. I like the idea of trying to get a handle on
the minimal transport services that TAPS can support.

Detailed comments on:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00

In Section 1:

I think the word "non-functional" is a little awkward, since it suggests
"dysfunctional" and we probably should seek a different word for clarity.

In Section 3:

My initial comments are on the list of features (this may have to be fed
back to the 1st TAPS ID, but it is more clear here at the moment, so I'll
comment here and see what people think:

   o  unicast: TCP SCTP UDP-Lite DCCP NORM
- Add UDP-Lite

   o  IPv6 multicast and anycast: UDP
- Add UDP-Lite

   o  multicast: NORM
- ??? Is this reliable, the multicast part includes UDP, UDP-Lite (as
non-reliable)

   o  unidirectional: UDP
- Add UDP-Lite

   o  bidirectional: TCP
- Add DCCP, SCTP

   o  IPv6 jumbograms: UDP
- Add UDP-Lite

   o  2-tuple endpoints: UDP
- Add UDP-Lite

   o  error detection (checksum): TCP UDP
- Add UDP-Lite, DCCP

   o  error detection (UDP checksum): NORM
-??? I see this is via UDP, but is it a real difference, NORM is only
specified over UDP

   o  strong error detection (CRC32C): SCTP
- Possible with TCP option, or AUTH or TLS (and possible with
UDP/UDP-Lite/DCCP using DTLS

   o  congestion control: TCP SCTP NORM
- Add DCCP

   o  no congestion control: UDP
- Add UDP-Lite

On section 4

I can offer more comments later, but initially I just note that I think
the Service Code in DCCP *IS* specified by the Application in the same way
that the port is chosen.

Gorry