Subject: RE: [NSIS] Reliable Transport for NTLP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:25:04 +0300

Hi Roland,

> Maybe I missed something, but I don't remember any offending statement
> from him. He mainly asked Melinda to check for existing signaling
> protocols that use an underlying reliable transport.

If we were in a court of law, I think I would have claimed that he
was badgering the witness - my main point was that as we do not
have a working assumption that NTLP MUST be reliable, his questioning
was inappropiate in tone.  

As a side note, several people came up to me yesterday staying that
several people at the mic & some on stage were too 'aggressive' in
their questioning / responding to questions.  I hope that we can
be more curtious at today's meeting.
 
> > However, my point is that the WG has not come to agreement that NTLP
> > should use reliable transport.  In fact, there is a 
> significant cost,
> > in my opinion, in terms of setup time & latency.  I will outline a
> 
> If NTLP must implement congestion control we may also need a three way
> handshake (see current DCCP spec).

At least our ADs have said that (currently) there is not a MUST for
congestion control.

> > scenario. Two end hosts, A & B, need to setup some signaling between
> > them.  If TCP is used as a transport, it is not a simple 3 way
> > handshake that is needed. If A & B are x NTLP hops away, they will
> > need x TCP connections, which, depending upon implementation, will
> > result a 3 way handshake between x+1 nodes, which is a significant
> > problem.  In addition, needing to setup TCP connections during fast
> > mobility can also be a problem.
> 
> As others already stated: there may be already established connections
> that can be reused.

This is a possibility, with detials which need to be provided. This is
my 'burden of proof' principle, meaning that I would like to have details
not handwaving. This is a general comment on when we are now starting
a design phase.  Saying things are easy / hard / etc. SHOULD be backed
up with some details.

> > My point is that I do not see the requirement for reliable transport
> > in NTLP.  If there are parties interested in using reliable transport,
> > the burden of proof is with them.  

John

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:59:34 +0200

Hi John,

> be more curtious at today's meeting.

Ok, to close these non-technical issue, maybe it is helpful for
participants to read and follow RFC 3184/BCP 54 from time to time
again. 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3184.txt
RFC 3184 IETF Guidelines for Conduct. S. Harris. October 2001. (Format:
     TXT=7413 bytes) (Also BCP0054) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

> At least our ADs have said that (currently) there is not a MUST for

Yes, I know (BTW: do we need to document this somewhere along with its
reasoning?). I just wanted to show that it's not reliability only that
may cause "complexity".

Regards, 
 Roland