[nanomsg] Re: UDP & TLS RFCs

  • From: Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:41:38 -0700

Garrett D'Amore wrote:

> That would not be a terrible way to recast the specs.  Although, I think
> it might come about that we need or want to handle more details than just
> stream vs datagram semantics on some transports.  For example, imagine
> websocket, where we might want to specify some things that are neither
> covered by websocket itself nor by the generic SP over STREAM bits.  (In
> particular, for websocket, we might want to have a way to select from
> different “applications” as part of the early websocket negotiation.)

Oh, for sure - but my point is that by defining based on semantics, then you 
have a base to reference in everything else. Then the only thing something 
protocol-specific needs to do is say "This has X semantics, so refer to RFC 
Y, and we take advantage of special property Z like so..."

Plus, that lets you collapse TLS and DTLS' protocol-specific portions into a 
single RFC, because they apply the same _security_ semantics to SOCK_STREAM 
and SOCK_DGRAM _transport_ semantics respectively.

> I do agree with your earlier idea that tls+tcp:// seems like a good way to
> specify this scheme.  I’ll go ahead and change my implementation to do
> that.
> 
> I think we need to include the syntax of these “addresses” as part of the
> RFCs, so that different applications or implementations can exchange them.

That does make sense.

> --
> Garrett D'Amore
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> On March 24, 2014 at 3:22:50 PM, Alex Elsayed (eternaleye@xxxxxxxxx)
> wrote:
> 
> One thing I'd wonder is if TCP/TLS/UDP are the right thing to key the
> specification on - what actually seems to be _relevant_ is "SP over
> transports with SOCK_STREAM semantics" and "SP over transports with
> SOCK_DGRAM semantics" - that then covers TCP, TCP+TLS, AF_UNIX SOCK_STREAM
> (IPC), IPC+TLS, UDP, UDP+DTLS, etc.
> 
> Martin Sustrik wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>  
>> Hi all,
>>  
>> I've added first drafts of UDP and TLS RFCs into the rfc subdirectory.
>> Feel free to comment.
>>  
>> Garrett, you'll probably want to make yourself the editor of the TLS
>> draft. I don't have enough experience in the area to make a sane
>> editor of that document.
>>  
>> As for generating the txts from xmls I am at the moment using online
>> xml.resource.org tool. Later on we can add xml2rfc to the build process.
>>  
>> Also note that I've added the RFCs to the nanomsg package.
>>  
>> Martin
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>  
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTL8uaAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Y7j4H/0mfcV8UsKuJuCzitWoM8puH
>> RdQGvHJCaZCAlWcjogUQis+NTSEO5UlasCpqG9jsq57o0Rt5ZnDytvqHPDLfBXmB
>> DsBghtDyufr3GC7L6G/EApQKCjn/+LfmHETiGUhAT2mUX0yGFulP4oc5RWbawzB0
>> AGEL3OdZELonOSV4G9QcPskbUaatD4jjhEcjG76LqXE3TC58B30yKxIKZrFRla/S
>> Zs9LMGAiBdMd8qJf5ymBsot0geu2Ej2K73P9/0pS9pa1roKcNLUOt0n8h/j4XdUz
>> HsXwV0u4mmc7aw1xmP8p8mrMvGGgeHUaXmKAsXPGE5qJDwBhp2tbTPtS2rsXxj4=
>> =xHyP
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Other related posts: