W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > February 1999

Re: Drafting mux WG charter

From: Chris Newman <chris@innosoft.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:28:09 -0800 (PST)
To: Mike Spreitzer <spreitze@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: ietf-http-ng@w3.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.990209121606.3616N-100000@elwood.innosoft.com>
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Mike Spreitzer wrote:
> At the HTTP-NG BOF at IETF-43 it was agreed to proceed chartering a WG
> to work on a muxing protocol.  This protocol addresses a subset of the
> problems outlined for APPLCORE.  As I've said before, I think the right
> approach for APPLCORE (and HTTP-NG as well) is to produce very modular
> specifications.  In particular, the two communities should get together
> on the problems addressed by the mux protocol.  I've been working on a
> charter for a mux WG, with discussion on the ietf-http-ng@w3.org mailing
> list (to join, see HTTP-NG home page at
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/).  I've just posted a new mux WG
> charter draft, at
> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/1999/02/mux-Charter-209.html>

I'm concerned about the idea of the IETF designing a protocol which
completely punts on security issues.  If this is a protocol with a port
number, then it needs to explain how security is activated for that port.
If it's just a layer, then it needs to explain how it's integrated into
lower-level security services or explain the consequences of security
attacks if a higher-level security service is used.  Security tends to
pervade all layers of all stacks in a truly secure system, so I'm dubious
it can be punted as this charter proposes.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of replicating all the flow-control
machinery of TCP in a layer above it.  The consequences of doing so should
be documented and justified.

		- Chris
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 1999 15:29:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:08:05 UTC