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

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

From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:53:29 +0200
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>
Message-Id: <07FF0072-DA3F-4E4A-9418-F2C4CF918817@ifi.uio.no>
To: willchan@google.com

On 28. aug. 2013, at 11:53, William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) 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!


Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 11:53:57 UTC

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