W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

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

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:30:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CABaLYCuom7VH+9VJrbe7-D+S7YfGtbS59ne5fG03Zrm=U5tc0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:

>  I think most of that is addressed in SCTP.  Except the deployment part.
> Standards people canít force vendors of operating systems or Linux
> distributions to include any feature. So we have a lot of ďversion 2Ēs in
> the IETF that take a very long time to get deployed. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Itís also much more attractive to define a new thing (like SCTP) than to
> make something old work a little better. SCTP was sexier than TCPM.****
>
> ** **
>
> So it took ages to get deployment of IPv6, IKEv2, TLS 1.2, and all three
> are still used far less than IPv4, IKEv1 and TLS 1.0. SCTP is used almost
> never. HTTP/2 will likely fare better because the vendors are more involved
> and committed, but itís hard to make predictions, especially about the
> future.
>

You're right, SCTP is non-deployable, which makes it a non-starter.  SCTP
also does not address handshake issues or TLS issues.

I don't mean to sound inflammatory - but for all intents and purposes, the
next generation transport will need to be in user space and run on top of
UDP.  There simply is no other deployable option on the table.  QUIC is
already reasonably far at exploring these issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC

Mike






> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Yoav****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Roberto Peon [mailto:grmocg@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:16 AM
>
> *To:* HTTP Working Group; tsvwg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: The List (of application-layer desired features)****
>
> ** **
>
> Actually sending to the right list for TSVWG...****
>
> ** **
>
> -=R****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> For those of you who missed it, at the HTTPBis/TSVG joint session, a
> question about what applications want from the transport (I really want to
> put quotes around that) came up.****
>
> ** **
>
> Here is a rendition of what was on the note that I jotted down in response
> to this question, and which I passed to people at the mic.****
>
> ** **
>
> (Apps-folks want the following) Deployed in 1996:****
>
> -----------------------------------------****
>
> - Prioritization****
>
> - Partial Reliability****
>
> - "Shared" congestion between multiple streams****
>
> - Security****
>
> - No HOL blocking on stream X when loss on stream Y****
>
> - Cheap/Fast  channel/connection setup****
>
> - Wide, "safe" deployment****
>
> - Competes with TCP/HTTP/1.1 (performance-wise)****
>
> - Multipath/roaming robustness, i.e. the "driveway" problem****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> I'll reiterate that by far the most important feature is "is deployed".***
> *
>
> Nothing else matters until that is true, at least at the application-layer.
> ****
>
> -=R****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> Email secured by Check Point ****
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 09:31:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:15 UTC