Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 04 November 2015 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 BF1891A8706 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:50:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 MtwNg_M9W45e for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CADD91ACEF4 for <taps@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.189] (cpe-172-250-225-10.socal.res.rr.com [172.250.225.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tA46oFVq009939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:50:25 -0800 (PST)
To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
References: <945E755A-3EB4-4325-8257-9ECC2EE3FC4B@ifi.uio.no> <6f6d07994fde18062e39ced796f199a9.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5638F272.8000507@isi.edu> <92d887c7d587ff05d9ca04dcddb17f4a@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5639AAA6.9020508@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:50:14 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <92d887c7d587ff05d9ca04dcddb17f4a@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/QilCK32rw0AaudKn25UWJEWSwWY>
Cc: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>, touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports
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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 06:50:38 -0000


On 11/3/2015 10:37 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote:
> HI Joe,
> 
> Yes I agree. But still there are finer features and BCP for api
> and protocol implementations that have appeared from the api's defined
> outside of the IETF and for which one need to look outside of RFC docs.

Oh, I was certainly not claiming that IETF specifications are always
complete. The key is to derive the abstract API requirement from the
implementation extensions (and update the spec, ultimately).

> Or for PUSH bit one can also look at RFC1122 which describes it as
> optional.

RFC1122 is a standards track doc that clearly updates RFC793, even
though that sort of marking was not part of IETF process when it was issued.

Joe

> 
> BR, Karen
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Taps [mailto:taps-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
>> Sent: 4. november 2015 02:44
>> To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
>> Cc: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>rg>; touch@isi.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2015 5:33 AM, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>>> GF: From a TSVWG Chair perspective, beware here...  *ALL* more recent
>>> IETF SCTP API work from TSVWG is INFO.  Each SCTP RFC is expected to
>>> have an informative section that describes the API together with the
>>> normative protocol spec. That is not because there are expected to be
>>> alternatives to choose from:  It's because, as I understand, the IETF
>>> is not the formal standards body for specification of such normative
> APIs.
>>
>> That has been a serious misinterpretation of how a protocol definition
> works,
>> which the IETF has propagated over the years.
>>
>> The abstract APIs - above and below - of a protocol are a key part of a
>> protocol specification. More directly, a protocol definition is a FSM
> that
>> consists of:
>>
>> 	- a finite state machine
>> 	- upper layer events (in/out)
>> 		i.e., the upper layer abstract API
>> 		the services that a protocol "creates"
>> 	- lower layer events (out/in)
>> 		i.e., the services on which the protocol relies
>> 	- time events
>> 	- rules that relate the items above
>>
>> The way in which an abstract API is implemented as Unix sockets might be
>> informative to the IETF (but not, e.g., to the POSIX community), but the
>> abstract API cannot be. It has to be a normative part of the definition
> of the
>> protocol.
>>
>> Otherwise, you end up with a protocol with no upper layer events or
> actions,
>> i.e., a tree falling in the woods with nobody to hear.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taps mailing list
>> Taps@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps