IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] Drive-by comments on draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-01

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 07 April 2016 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 E89EF12D533 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 j3qqgNqPnFS6 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:34]) (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 7128C12D508 for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.99]) by comcast with SMTP id oEtwaEc498DPnoEvGa2TCS; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:44:54 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1460054694; bh=LD5N98DE8fXNxXpoGDED39epEJhFQYOV5mKak5SwBJM=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=dyksuQGBaABcitHgCYXpCGWFOIVaG/nRI5tkkVOk0TDryQCics08ZjUphXHqy2wOU i0giprd6xsad0DEke3IvV86lGxLhp3VG9MpMtyVraH+DYjg6ddFG+apWka+XN7GiNt tyf8mNjsfWp0SXAWvcWWEbsY1/QJ0a498G2lqyu+idKSduvHmP1cHUV1T9l5QkTXtX +M/HA7aUencz3Pq33XDJF6usywGKnAThRQhPlIVxoEz3Ccnlu9fNfXabXlMadRKCSV G7qw+vQresQ1PbCb9fHTmGcA+kCgZFwezMO/s9IPECSmE0ckJTN2kKcw/aDS5B0F7r 8+/bpt8u5/+SQ==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([73.143.237.82]) by resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id fWkt1s00D1nMCLR01WktCo; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:44:54 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u37IiqvQ023174; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:44:53 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u37Iiqde023170; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:44:52 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <57054D27.8050505@isi.edu> (touch@isi.edu)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:44:51 -0400
Message-ID: <87bn5ltg0s.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/xGhOzhwvwrl_v1lII506tUXnTwQ>
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, taps@ietf.org, touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [Taps] Drive-by comments on draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-01
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:44:57 -0000

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> writes:
> For connectionless protocols, "CONNECT" is often the basic primitive by
> which a user indicates the socket pair (address/port) of the remote end.

The trouble I see is that the concept of "listening" is not covered.
The passive or listening endpoint doesn't initiate a "connect" operation
to indicate the address/port of the remote end, that is indicated by the
arrival of a packet from the remote end.  As I read the draft, it seems
to assume that both ends can do a "connect" before they exchange any
packets at all.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email