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

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

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:59:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfK2o89WQwuVUcGXCrThw2a0swk0qaZj-8-zA5uPyiikA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
The large difference being that I can't just deploy TCP-AO on 3rd party
machines. I have to wait for the vendors these 3rd parties use to do it
(e.g. the OS vendor), accept patches for it and deploy it, etc.
I have zero control over that, and zero control over the timeframe. That
means I can't plan for it or hurry it along.

Unfortunately, much of the time, my only options are either to complain
about it, or attempt to replace it.
-=R


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/4/2013 3:20 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Michael Tuexen
>> <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.**franken.de <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
>> <mailto:Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.**franken.de<Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      > I suspect that Yuchung meant 'widely deployed and available',
>>     when he says 'always'. That should certainly be true for TCP.
>>     That is definitely true for TCP.
>>     However, why do you need an alternate solution to be "widely
>>     deployed". Can't it
>>     be deployed within the browser?
>>
>>
>> I think people are being too imprecise which leads to confusion. UDP is
>> widely deployed. A UDP based solution can be deployed within the
>> browser. TCP-AO is not widely deployed. It cannot be deployed within the
>> browser.
>>
>
> Although that's correct, there's no way to protect UDP. TCP-AO is for
> protecting individual TCP connections; if that's what you want, you need to
> update TCP.
>
> My point about TCP-AO is that it's not useful to continue to complain that
> something isn't widely deployed. If you need what it has, then why not
> start by helping deploy it? Then at least there's one less thing to
> complain about being missing in a few years.
>
> Joe
>
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 00:59:28 UTC

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