Re: Draft Review request - EUDP

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F503A6CC5 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:28:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.413, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yS5e0rMQUipO for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB2B3A6C18 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so6782232bwz.31 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:29:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ovqK5qOM88D1H59mk7HEi/QeSe2CSK9VRbnMca6Xg+M=; b=LjX7eD4iayX4v2xL++usE4xD8c/gkZJDHiFxLlekGSeYKG9snah/qspzjGYuzImaGR R4WjqsbiQ1mVqfXustruqQxGlggxVsewLass+YkSPbpjdtQrseepm50DuhUBW4JOTz9M QNLxHAYmJTeFDgpgM2kIRSV+wNrPc0O1JyW1k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YWzdrUJjsU6f9jtPEYI4yNiwsAnRkF9eFq0gSvzL50AbkcfilyTqtwlDOSuvPcC2ft qoA2hkMeacEgmlo2oBIC7M5nl3ynJ+Qfqyua5izyAUTJsvr1/AnB/zKoxmtU/QB/BAnz t4pxSX4KKAMsJbKF67SJxduGiEg0sm1fJKyB4=
Received: by 10.204.118.7 with SMTP id t7mr1066186bkq.97.1291213778398; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p34sm3429636bkf.3.2010.12.01.06.29.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:29:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4CF65BD7.20304@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:29:43 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: Draft Review request - EUDP
References: <4CF630B9.2070901@gmail.com> <C23D4465-516D-4150-A3EC-8AF7E21E084B@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C23D4465-516D-4150-A3EC-8AF7E21E084B@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:28:26 -0000

01.12.2010 13:52, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2010-12-1, at 13:25, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> I have recently made a draft which, IMO, will be interesting
>> for the WG. You can find it here:
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-eudp/?include_text=1
>>
>> Could you please review it?
> This is not a useful proposal. Why? UDP is IP plus ports and a checksum. There is no feature negotiation, no state machine to be extended, etc. *at the protocol level*.
IMO (and this is the main purpose of the EUDP) if some feature concerns 
any protocol or data which is to be put into payload of the protocol of 
some layer, the corresponding option should be put in 'this-layer' 
protocol header. Moreover, UDP provides core service while TCP or DCCP 
provide many features which can be just not needed. EUDP can provide (or 
not provide) any features except core ones.
It is made to provide the choice of features.
> (Sure, applications using UDP have these things. But they can *already* put whatever they like into the payload anyway. There is no need for a common spec.)
>
> Plus, by using a different IP protocol number, it is pretty much guaranteed that middleboxes will simply drop this traffic.
Why do you think that if there is unknown protocol code the traffic will 
be dropped? Currently there are 142 IP Protocol umbers and near 10 are 
really used. Will you prove that other 132 are being dropped?
> Lars
>
> PS: Meta comment: You have submitted quite a number of IDs lately (http://tools.ietf.org/id/yevstifeyev). I really do applaud your enthusiasm. But the vast majority of your IDs to me appear to be rather pointless. I encourage you to follow some WGs that interest you most more closely, in order to learn where your contributions would be most useful. I'm being blunt here - please don't be offended. I don't want you to turn away from the IETF in frustration because your contributions don't get traction; I want your contributions to matter.
Thank you for advice.

I hope I have explained everything clearly.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev