IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 21 November 2007 22:43 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyIQ-0007OM-60; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:43:50 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyIO-0007Ma-G5 for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:43:48 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyIN-0007MB-VU for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:43:48 -0500
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuyIK-0000XE-Lx for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:43:47 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-106-88-149.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.88.149]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lALMhJNF021996; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4744B47F.8060306@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:43:11 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward [Was Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE020@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58044CE020@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1407937839=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
> WHY WE BELIEVE THERE IS A NEED FOR STANDARD CHANGE/EXISTING STANDARD
> CLARIFICATION ?
> ========================================================================
> ============
> [Few people have echoed this question, the response below ]
> 
> I think there is a need for some standards change. Reason : I'll give an
> example of a TCP proxy which doesn't have an application on top per se.

That doesn't exist. TCP always has an application on top. TCP proxies
may have a relatively trivial one, and it may be implemented in the
kernel, but TCP delivers data to an application.

I.e., to TCP, "application" means "software I deliver data to". It
doesn't mean "user space program".

There are TCP "proxies" that translate packets directly; they don't
implement TCP. To implement TCP is to originate and terminate a connection.

Joe


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email