Re: session layers, was Re: Renumbering ... Should we consider an association that spans transports?

[John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>]

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 at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
> IRISH SEA: SOUTHERLY, BACKING NORTHEASTERLY FOR A TIME, 3 OR 4. SLIGHT OR
> MODERATE. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf