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

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

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@google.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:53:54 +0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYhK4TQNsYiemfDq5xVtxtmPV=suqteRUkb11r43ZxRHAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
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...?

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.
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 09:54:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC