IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features)

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Wed, 28 August 2013 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F44E21F9929 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 04:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t9TmbdzSDsLG for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 04:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDAE21F9E88 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 04:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1VEeJY-0005w0-1k; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:53:32 +0200
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1VEeJX-0001rY-8l; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:53:31 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_012F4437-F617-4C95-90CD-8305644C7705"
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYhK4TQNsYiemfDq5xVtxtmPV=suqteRUkb11r43ZxRHAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:53:29 +0200
Message-Id: <07FF0072-DA3F-4E4A-9418-F2C4CF918817@ifi.uio.no>
References: <CAP+FsNeMqB0+igBZjjsT-Xb+17YdUyptBJ2N0x9_jaaLYzKisQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcvR5q3N2iLv6wM6LQXS72sg1pdvTWdU9rsSFAP8OHpwA@mail.gmail.com> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772111B7D710@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <CABaLYCuom7VH+9VJrbe7-D+S7YfGtbS59ne5fG03Zrm=U5tc0Q@mail.gmail.com> <081D0F76-F4AE-42D5-B354-795BE4910D23@lurchi.franken.de> <2ADDC87F-8E20-4D7D-B0A0-20CE3DD12B81@ifi.uio.no> <CAA4WUYhK4TQNsYiemfDq5xVtxtmPV=suqteRUkb11r43ZxRHAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: willchan@google.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 6 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 7 sum msgs/h 1 total rcpts 6953 max rcpts/h 40 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-6.9, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.94, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: EF9E70F37F3500DABB00633F0ABDD2B3974F6092
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -68 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 2768 max/h 16 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Cc: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 28 Aug 2013 11:54:12 -0000

On 28. aug. 2013, at 11:53, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:

> On Aug 28, 2013 4:01 PM, "Michael Welzl" <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree 100% with Michael Tuexen here... just one thing, in line:
> >
> >
> >>> You're right, SCTP is non-deployable, which makes it a non-starter.  SCTP also does not address handshake issues or TLS issues.
> >>
> >> I agree that SCTP over IP can't be deployed now due to missing NAT support.
> >
> >
> > Indeed that's not an argument against SCTP/UDP/IP, but I also wonder why, instead of saying "can't be deployed", people don't just go ahead and use it whenever it's there and works, with a fall-back to TCP? This could be done with (this version of) Happy Eyeballs:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-tsvwg-happy-eyeballs-sctp-02
> >
> > Good reasons against doing this are... what? Anyone?
> 
> Implementation usefulness. Why bother adding code that barely gets used (and that is unlikely to improve in the near future), adds complexity, code bloat, etc...?
> 
Fair point. That's why I think the OS should in fact do Happy Eyeballs for you!

> SCTP/UDP has a much higher likelihood of usefulness. But as Roberto has mentioned, it still has deficiencies, mostly around RTTs (connection + DTLS setup). If they can be fixed, great. Let's do it.
> 
Why shouldn't it be possible to fix SCTP to do whatever you want? Anyway it sounds to me like a simpler approach than building a whole new protocol. Of course, SCTP++ isn't the nicest acronym...  then again, RTMFP isn't either, if you ask me, sounds almost like RTFM...  QUIC is great though!

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email