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

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Wed, 04 November 2015 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@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 4320E1A8940 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:31:43 -0800 (PST)
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 DJtyAUmuPHmE for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:31:41 -0800 (PST)
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 E6CBC1A1A82 for <taps@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Zu3mH-00062y-VZ; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:31:25 +0100
Received: from 173.179.249.62.customer.cdi.no ([62.249.179.173] helo=[192.168.0.101]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Zu3mH-0007FZ-Fe; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:31:25 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <563A4A4E.4020904@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:31:23 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7249EAF7-C6C0-47AC-9B22-FF7DE41B8EC9@ifi.uio.no>
References: <945E755A-3EB4-4325-8257-9ECC2EE3FC4B@ifi.uio.no> <6f6d07994fde18062e39ced796f199a9.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <168e06db09417654f64461f700a0d4f5@mail.gmail.com> <563A4A4E.4020904@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 4 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 6 sum msgs/h 3 total rcpts 34813 max rcpts/h 54 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: 09D46321D20F2F79CC05137D48AB46E6B3551AB4
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 62.249.179.173 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 2127 max/h 14 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/k440wBBfYafvoxts-BhtSapJDBw>
Cc: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>, "<gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fairhurst" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>
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 19:31:43 -0000

> On 4. nov. 2015, at 19.11, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/3/2015 5:27 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote:
>> HI,
>> 
>> As a general comment then I believe that when describing what is supported
>> by TCP/SCTP (or UDP) as standard then it does not suffice to look into
>> IETF RFCs.
>> One need at least to relate to the *basic functions* of the POSIX/Berkeley
>> socket api standard.
>> 
>> My understanding of the TCP API, for example, is that while RFC793 did
>> specify an abstract API for TCP, then
>> the true defacto standard for the socket api is the Berkeley socket api
>> from .?. around 1990.
>> Not saying the different socket api standards don't differ and that there
>> is *one* standard to look at.
>> But making is be RFC793 rather then what emerged as defacto in the 1990's
>> seems a "bit odd" to me.
> 
> There are implementations of TCP that do not use the Berkeley sockets
> model. Note, though, that the concept of a socket for communications
> itself comes from RFC793, not Unix.
> 
>> Especially since we have RFCs RFC1122 dating back to 1989 already
>> clarifying part of RFC793 (namely the PUSH bit)
>> And one, much more recent, RFC6093, clarifying the urgent bit.
> 
> When we talk about TCP, we certainly mean more than just RFC793 - we
> include all updates to that spec, which include these documents. In some
> cases, the updates came from implementation experience; in other cases,
> they came from the standards community because of more fundamental concerns.

I believe that was just a misunderstanding: Karen thought that I had only used RFC793 when writing draft-welzl-taps-transports-00, but really I did try to use all relevant RFCs.

Cheers,
Michael