IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] TCP components

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 17 June 2015 18:11 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 245721B2C93 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 3Vla5-asRlaj for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83E6E1B2CA0 for <taps@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5HIAaw2000145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5581B81B.4090500@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:10:35 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, Mirja Kühlew ind <mirja.kuehlewind@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>
In-Reply-To: <57DC7DAB-7054-41BE-8515-626353782BBC@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: t5HIAaw2000145
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/b276GKZHx6VhfCqzP2hJj1frmgU>
Cc: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, touch@isi.edu
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: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:11:14 -0000


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email