IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] How to handle Protocol stacks that are not equivalent

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9EE1203A0 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 nowRj09c5jlQ for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 15D6C120413 for <taps@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=IcXICj/xNL/RwHMhU8JWV/kaWNIHHE4JwOyndCa3O5U=; b=qbZ5lafdFaVQT+NJf2OXU+qnn TL5rdKVrdIx/hv+FdW/vOsVccgZ6BmMkNNnbXPQR+OMteRD6SbQEZckEnN6pWus2MgeNFhLtOlR/y Bxq0pcZdVIRWSS0MuU53jSYLDBx/VvpURYwpaO26UurESw9aShgRtEycPiplo4vPK/5WWLymE0Mk9 FZ6e47M5nylFOr2XwCgZqR0YCLh2yeMC61e7ztQrpaEMEM7fXJAPmWa1bP07sT/Q6ajwAeUpIknIB 3IqKBGC17WmFr9ttih9bYbzFHA5NoMxw0ECVz5DnQcyLnZiaTgDltSJ7yJzJIKr4IEFgV9j6jikkB I0aCRWv0g==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50588 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1hpx8Z-003YJs-Fz; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:55:40 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7539C816-072C-4759-A72F-BCDE22DECBD7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <8fdbe7df-872c-57da-a79e-e51ec0ba6553@inet.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:55:34 -0700
Cc: taps@ietf.org
Message-Id: <CE86E597-831E-478A-B75D-147D65AE47E5@strayalpha.com>
References: <3D1D6BE1-6AE2-4098-A2C8-40ADF73A2316@tiesel.net> <F9C04679-79DB-4CAA-9710-DD5C04FD30E8@apple.com> <5D3722DF.8070000@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <8fdbe7df-872c-57da-a79e-e51ec0ba6553@inet.tu-berlin.de>
To: Theresa Enghardt <theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/kpL_BdB5zeqLsb8joXyIwscpJIo>
Subject: Re: [Taps] How to handle Protocol stacks that are not equivalent
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:55:53 -0000


> On Jul 23, 2019, at 8:19 AM, Theresa Enghardt <theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> 
> Another important difference between TCP and UDP are Message Boundaries.
> So in some cases, TCP + Framer may be equivalent to UDP.

FWIW, they might provide *similar* capabilities, even only those that the app is concerned about, but there are a LOT of other differences that can’t be glossed over. In some cases, it is TCP that is lacking (as above); in others, UDP).

It’s only important whether the user does or doesn’t care about those properties. When they match what they care about, they can be considered equivalent.

I.e., there’s not likely going to be a strict and absolute equivalence between transports.

Equivalence is TO THE USER, relative to their constraints.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email