Re: [core] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-07

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Hi,
 
The clairification raised is my question.
 
We did implement the protocol as the senarios described.
The problems were we met, not be thought out.
 
I wish there will be an answer.
 
Regards,
 
Gengyu WEI
Network Technology Center
School of Computer
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
 
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [core] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-07
 
Hi Carsten,
 
Great. I will take a look at it when it's published.
Thanks for the efforts!
--
Yoshi
 
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Spencer,

I’m not Yoshi :-), but I just have started working on an update of
https://lwig-wg.github.io/coap/#rfc.section.6
with some of the new information that relates to CoAP over reliable; I hope that I will be able to push this during this week.

Note that CoAP over TCP/TLS/WS does address application layer acknowledgement beyond the request-response acknowledgement semantics by introducing the custody option of the PING/PONG signaling messages.  This may be useful in compensating the decrease of information available to the CoAP application as a result of moving some of the transport functionality into TCP.

Grüße, Carsten



> On May 8, 2017, at 05:17, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi, Yoshi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
> As far as I've read -08 draft, I think this point has not been addressed yet. I hope some folks could elaborate a bit more if they think this is not an important point for the draft.
>
> I've seen the subsequent e-mails in reply to yours, but it's not obvious to me whether you think this point was addressed after reading those e-mails.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
> --
> Yoshi
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think that I understand your perceptions better. Prior to adoption of coap-tcp-tls and before I was active in the WG, I recall discussions related to the confusion over application vs transport reliability in CoAP especially as related to CON and NON. What was intended?
>
>
>
> Tim Carey outlined some concerns in:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carey-core-std-msg-vs-trans-adapt-00#section-2
>
>
>
> This topic was presented in detail at IETF 93 - https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-core-0.pdf - starting on slide 23.
>
>
>
> And in a related thread on the mailing list back in 2015 - https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg06280.html - Carsten responded:
>
>
>
> > In any case, CON and NON are about message layer semantics, not about application semantics
>
> > -- you gave them a meaning they don't have.
>
>
>
> By IETF 94, the authors were reporting – “Most of the Confusion around              CON/NON was resolved”.
>
>
>
> Where relevant, I’ve added clarifications - such as the Appendix related to differences in Observe for reliable transports.
>
>
>
> Both Carsten and Hannes could probably offer more context if needed.
>
>
>
> From: Yoshifumi Nishida [mailto:nishida@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 2:08 PM
> To: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; tsv-art@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls@ietf.org; core@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-07
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> Just in case,
>
> Reliable transports only provide reliability at transport level. It doesn't provide reliability in application protocol level.
>
>
>
> RFC7252 has reliability mechanisms in it since it uses UDP. This means it has abilities to check both transport and app level reliability.
>
> This draft only provides transport level reliability and apps will need to detect app protocol failure by themselves.
>
> This means 7252 and this draft are not totally equivalent from the viewpoint of applications.
>
>
>
> I am not saying this is wrong or bad, but I believe app developer should aware this point.
>
> --
>
> Yoshi
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Yoshi,
>
>
>
> > OK. I also think we should state that the protocol should notify the failure events to applications.
>
> > Since errors can happen not only in TCP, but also TLS and websocket level, mentioning only TCP close or reset might not
>
> > be enough.
>
>
>
> After reviewing with the authors, an additional clarification was appended to 3.4 Connection Health - https://github.com/core-wg/coap-tcp-tls/pull/140/files
>
>
>
> The opinion of the authors (and Gengyu WEI’s recent response - https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg08622.html) is that RFC6455 covers the WebSocket case and does not need to be repeated here.
>
>
>
> > When we use 7252, I think applications basically don't need to implement timeouts or retry mechanisms as the protocol
>
> > provides such things.
>
>
>
> RFC7252 provides timeouts and retries because it's implementing a TCP-like reliability mechanism over UDP - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#section-2.1
>
>
>
> > However, when we use this one, it seems applications will need to have such mechanisms. Isn't it a bit confusing? I am thinking that
>
> > there need to be some guidance here.
>
> > BTW, PONG is one example.
>
>
>
> For coap-tcp-tls, there are multiple early implementations. This has never been reported as a source of confusion.
>
>
>
> >> My sense is that we should treat this as an update to RFC7959 based on the original language:
>
> > I don't have a strong opinion here. Updating 7959 is fine for me if it's clearer to CoAP people.
>
>
>
> I've merged the change - https://github.com/core-wg/coap-tcp-tls/pull/138/files
>
>
>
> Thanks again for helping us to improve the quality of the draft,
>
>
>
> …Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tsv-art mailing list
> Tsv-art@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
_______________________________________________
Tsv-art mailing list
Tsv-art@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
 

_______________________________________________
core mailing list
core@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]