Fast Select was a single packet that opened, transfered data, and
closed a connection. The same as what Mr. Ford's description. There
was nothing remotely "transactional" about Fast Select. It was a
direct counter to the proposal to put datagrams in X.25. It was a
silly idea, then and it remains so. Deeper thinking about the nature
of the problem would have yielded simpler results than SST.
I do admit to taking a cheap shot at one of the more obvious
weirdnesses in an amazingly weird paper as SIGCOMM continues to
promulgate the groupthink, rather than break it.
At 15:07 +0100 2007/09/17, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, John Day wrote:
I am afraid that I must agree with Fred. There is nothing very new in this
paper and its publication is merely another indication of how far down the
blind alley we have gone. I was surprised SIGCOMM even published
dressing up
X.25 Fast Select with fancy words. Amazing.
Isn't Fast Select more like RFC 1644 TCP for Transactions than Ford's
Structured Streams? IIUC, X.25 and SCTP have similarly static multiplexing
configurations and delimited records, unlike SST.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/
IRISH SEA: SOUTHERLY, BACKING NORTHEASTERLY FOR A TIME, 3 OR 4. SLIGHT OR
MODERATE. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf