Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:What is wrong with SCTP and DCCP? (Score 3, Interesting) 35

by swillden (#49503565) Attached to: Google To Propose QUIC As IETF Standard

SCTP, for one, doesn't have any encryption.

Good, there is no reason to bind encryption to transport layer except to improve reliability of the channel in the face of active denial (e.g. TCP RST attack).

I disagree. To me there's at least one really compelling reason: To push universal encryption. One of my favorite features of QUIC is that encryption is baked so deeply into it that it cannot really be removed. Google tried to eliminate unencrypted connections with SPDY, but the IETF insisted on allowing unencrypted operation for HTTP2. I don't think that will happen with QUIC.

But there are other reasons as well, quite well-described in the documentation. The most significant one is performance. QUIC achieves new connection setup with less than one round trip on average, and restart with none... just send data.

Improvements to TCP helps everything layered on top of it.

True, but TCP is very hard to change. Even with wholehearted support from all of the major OS vendors, we'd have lots of TCP stacks without the new features for a decade, at least. That would not only slow adoption, it would also mean a whole lot of additional design complexity forced by backward compatibility requirements. QUIC, on the other hand, will be rolled out in applications, and it doesn't have to be backward compatible with anything other than previous versions of itself. It will make its way into the OS stacks, but systems that don't have it built in will continue using it as an app library.

Not having stupid unnecessary dependencies means I can benefit from TLS improvements even if I elect to use something other than IP to provide an ordered stream or I can use TCP without encryption and not have to pay for something I don't need.

So improve and use those protocols. You may even want to look to QUIC's design for inspiration. Then you can figure out how to integrate your new ideas carefully into the old protocols without breaking compatibility, and then you can fight your way through the standards bodies, closely scrutinized by every player that has an existing TLS or TCP implementation. To make this possible, you'll need to keep your changes small and incremental, and well-justified at every increment. Oh, but they'll also have to be compelling enough to get implementers to bother. With hard work you can succeed at this, but your timescale will be measured in decades.

In the meantime, QUIC will be widely deployed, making your work irrelevant.

As for using TCP without encryption so you don't have to pay for something you don't need, I think you're both overestimating the cost of encryption and underestimating its value. A decision that a particular data stream doesn't have enough value to warrant encryption it is guaranteed to be wrong if your application/protocol is successful. Stuff always gets repurposed and sufficient re-evaluation of security requirements is rare (even assuming the initial evaluation wasn't just wrong).

TCP+TFO + TLS extensions provide the same zero RTT opportunity as QUIC without reinventing wheels.

Only for restarts. For new connections you still have all the TCP three-way handshake overhead, followed by all of the TLS session establishment. QUIC does it in one round trip, in the worst case, and zero in most cases.

There was much valid (IMO) criticism of SPDY, that it really only helped really well-optimized sites -- like Google's -- to perform significantly better. Typical sites aren't any slower with SPDY, but aren't much faster, either, because they are so inefficient in other areas that request bottlenecks aren't their problem, so fixing those bottlenecks doesn't help. But QUIC will generally cut between two and four RTTs out of every web browser connection. And, of course, it also includes all of the improvements SPDY brought, plus new congestion management mechanisms which are significantly better than what's in TCP (so I'm told, anyway; I haven't actually looked into that part).

I'm not saying the approach you prefer couldn't work. It probably could. In ten to twenty years. Meanwhile, a non-trivial percentage of all Internet traffic today is already using QUIC, and usage is likely to grow rapidly as other browsers and web servers incorporate it.

I think the naysayers here have forgotten the ethos that made the Internet what it is: Rough consensus and running code first, standardization after. In my admittedly biased opinion (some of my friends work on SPDY and QUIC), Google's actions with SPDY and QUIC aren't a violation of the norms of Internet protocol development, they're a return to those norms.

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 2) 134

You find it hard to condemn a guy who was given the job of justifying murdering six million Jews?

You do understand, I trust, that Goebbels was more than just a propaganda writer, but a senior minister and, for a brief time, one of Hitler's chief heirs. But even the propaganda itself was horrifying in its vileness and evil, and even Goebbels had never done anything else, that would still make him one of the evilest men in hisotry.

Comment: Re:The third factor (Score 1) 276

by rtb61 (#49502937) Attached to: Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?

First up and most importantly of all, the measure of success of the ignorant and the measure of success of the intelligent are worlds apart. So yeah, I have a bunch of Bananas or I have more Bananas than everyone else, might work for monkeys but it does not work for intelligent people, nor does striving to achieve marketed definitions of success when you can see through the marketing (ignorance is bliss right up until they shut the gas chamber door and start pumping in you final breath). Now having a very broad sense of humour about all of that crap and that tied into the certainty of the 'LACK' of immortality of the vehicle of you temporary entrapment, it's demands must be met, else you do suffer in many ways, will provide many opportunities for humour and happiness not that you will often bother to share that with others, they will often take offence at the reason for your humour.

There is deeper meaning to. Have as much fun as possible, whilst causing the least amount of harm possible. Added to Annoy those that break the first rule, apparently it's necessary but don't forget to have fun whilst doing it. And of course Care and share in the wonders and joy of life. Winning at life, is most definitely not winning at greed not matter what the psychopaths say (they can never be happy as they lack that emotional ability regardless of the lies they express about it).

Happiness in more intelligent people, a measure of their sense of humour as balanced against the level of destructive deceit the can see and understand in the society of which they are a part. If you believe the sewer you are wallowing in is paradise, you'll likely be happy, however if you see the sewer for what it is, unless to have a sufficiently wry sense of humour, you likely will be unhappy. There are of course a range of intoxicating agents to re-introduce you to the world of bliss in ignorance of your youth, even if only temporarily so and fuck all those ignorant annoying ass hats who would deny that escape from them and their offensive nasty attitudes and behaviours. Greed the only measure of success, well, fuck that, I mean how persistent do you really need to be, to be able to light up a joint ;D.

Comment: Re:Questionable engineering decisions. (Score 1) 56

by rtb61 (#49502743) Attached to: Rocket Lab Unveils "Electric" Rocket Engine

You missed the bit where you can also feed the exhaust from the gas driven pump into the rocket engine exhaust and recover some of that energy and mass as thrust. The energy from an electric motor being completely lost. I though rocket patents are really tricky as most countries incorporate legislation to override patent laws and treaties when subject to national interests (patents with regard to military applications are purely voluntary and can be readily over ridden).

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 134

And who exactly did any of the senior Nazis kill? Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and the whole senior gang were the directors of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Are you seriosulyt asserting that they did nothing wrong? After WWIz I don't think Hitler actually killed anyone personally.

"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully." -- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse