Re: [Tsvwg] [P2PSIP] Comments on draft-baset-tsvwg-tcp-over-udp-00
<BeckW@telekom.de> Wed, 15 April 2009 08:06 UTC
Return-Path: <BeckW@telekom.de>
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 A9FF23A6B46; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 WSO6-laIdbhF; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9163A6A96; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaanq.blf.telekom.de (HELO S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.166]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2009 10:08:00 +0200
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.14]) by S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:08:00 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:07:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4A956CE47D1066408D5C7EB34368A511043C9C01@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.SOC.1.00.0904091318480.5047@banana.cc.columbia.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Re: [P2PSIP] Comments on draft-baset-tsvwg-tcp-over-udp-00
Thread-Index: Acm5ODXziTlh83yyQ+eRm/Fx+6QCtwEZX4Ow
References: <alpine.SOC.1.00.0904091318480.5047@banana.cc.columbia.edu>
From: BeckW@telekom.de
To: sa2086@columbia.edu, p2psip@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Apr 2009 08:08:00.0488 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B252680:01C9BDA1]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:38:56 -0700
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] [P2PSIP] Comments on draft-baset-tsvwg-tcp-over-udp-00
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, 15 Apr 2009 08:06:51 -0000
The figure in seection 2 describes ToU as a library. This is desirable for quick adoption, but is basically an implementation detail. The socket-like API in section 5 is of limited use if you want to mix ordinary file descriptors and libraries with ToU sockets (eg gtk_input_add, or Qt's QSocketNotifier). DLL trickeries might give better results. The draft doesn't discuss any timing constraints that a library implementer would have to meet: is it enough to check timers on every tou_ call? Or do I need a background thread? What information needs to be shared among several applications using ToU, like ISN and TCBs? Is this even possible if applications on a single system use different ToU libraries? (should this draft be discussed in p2psip or tsvwg?) Wolfgang