Re: [tsv-area] TSVAREA presentation slots for Stockholm

["Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <[e-mail]>]

I tend to agree with Lloyd on this question.  The distinction
between these two layers (transport and application) is quite
blurry when it comes to "applications" that end up being used
as middleware for other applications.  Application protocols
stacked on other application protocols 3 or 4 deep is no longer
uncommon, and definitely makes our layering models look
ridiculous.  Personally, the model we have where layers have
particular names ("link", "network", "transport", etc.) has
been useful to get this far, but needs to be thrown away to
progress.  Does anyone really enjoy explaining to their interns
and students that IPsec is layer 3 1/3 and MPLS is layer 2.5
after they've only just begun to grok the basic layered model?

To me, if a piece of code is controlling transmission in terms of
things like timing, segmentation/reassembly, error checking, ACK,
retransmission, on behalf of some set of applications, then it
smells a lot like a "transport".  John Day has noticed that the
same thing can be said about part of the link layer, and realized
that these are all just different flavors of the same flow and
error-control parent class in his PNA.  This fits reality much
better than giving strict names to layers at what have now become
arbitrary points within the stack.

But back to the point on this thread ... considering that the
proposal is to use HTTP to provide an interface for transport
services, and not to extend HTTP as it also exists as a
top-of-the-stack application, it is definitely more applicable
to the TSV area than the APP area.

---------------------------
Wes Eddy
Network & Systems Architect
Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
Office: [phone]
---------------------------

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>Behalf Of Lloyd Wood
>Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:57 AM
>To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
>Cc: TSV Area
>Subject: Re: [tsv-area] TSVAREA presentation slots for Stockholm
>
>Not sure it's an application issue, as there is work to be done on the
>transports.
>See e.g.
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery
>
>As for a better title:
>"Turning HTTP into a standalone layer in the stack"?
>
>On 4 Jun 2009, at 16:40, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> On 3 jun 2009, at 22:25, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Title: Turning HTTP into a full-fledged networking layer
>>>
>>
>> I think this belongs in app area and needs a better title.
>
>DTN work: http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/saratoga/
>
><http://info.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[e-mail]>
>
>
>
>