Re: [Taps] Comments on draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00
Stein Gjessing <steing@ifi.uio.no> Fri, 26 June 2015 10:07 UTC
Return-Path: <steing@ifi.uio.no>
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 D47881A89D3 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 bigyRxSGJqwT for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F3541A89B5 for <taps@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx1.uio.no ([129.240.10.29]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <steing@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Z8QXS-0007fX-5A; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:07:14 +0200
Received: from 16.79-161-30.customer.lyse.net ([79.161.30.16] helo=[10.0.1.3]) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user steing (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <steing@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Z8QXR-0006lR-JN; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:07:14 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Stein Gjessing <steing@ifi.uio.no>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <734fb5eae22df80e67a71fde5ad74204.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:07:12 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B12A213E-FA7E-414B-84AF-F3E94CB0AA34@ifi.uio.no>
References: <734fb5eae22df80e67a71fde5ad74204.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 4 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 7 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 14022 max rcpts/h 43 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 4EB493DBCF95DBA584CF7A019093C383BE763D17
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: UIO-GREYLIST remote_host: 79.161.30.16 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 99990 minaction 1 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 1516 max/h 32 blacklist 0 greylist 1 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/ZgA4UU3-45FWJPZcLk_LiK8xnpE>
Cc: taps@ietf.org, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, Stein Gjessing <steing@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: [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 10:07:19 -0000
Hi Gorry, Thank you very much for your feedback. We will add what you point out that we have missed in Section 3. Some more comments in-line. On 26 Jun 2015, at 11:21, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: > > 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. You are the english speaking person her, so you are probably right. However “non-functional” has a technical meaning in software design, and that is what I meant here. See e.g.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_requirement > > 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) I am not sure what you mean here. Does not NORM implement multicast? There is no statement about it being reliable or not (but may be it should?) > > 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 Yes, so if we want to include NORM (or may be we should not in the initial minimal version?) then we must include that it supports error detection as in 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. OK, so we have to include this. Cheers, Stein > > Gorry > > > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > Taps@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps