[standards-jig] Pub/Sub for JNG?

Joe Hildebrand jhildebrand at jabber.com
Thu May 2 01:27:32 UTC 2002

Since dave didn't reply directly to any of my valid criticisms of UDP,
I'm taking a slightly less concilliatory tone.  Sorry in advance.

Dave <dave at dave.tj> writes:

> Will somebody please bring up one point that would appear to imply that
> UDP is useless to almost everybody?  If not, then allowing people to
> use UDP if they prefer causes us no harm, and may actually benefit some.

Because (Joe looks around the room) no Jabber implementations will
implement it, unless you write one.  /me holds his breath.

>>  I'll just add one point
>> that hasn't been brought up.  Writing your own protocol on top of UDP would
>> probably be a decent idea if you are a proprietary company with full control
>> over client and server development.  However, for an open source project you
>> will immediately shut off a large number of client developers who don't want
>> to reimplement the protocol in their language of choice....
> The UDP proposal that I came up with (quite off-handedly, as well -
> I'm sure many others can think of even better specs) doesn't reimplement
> most of TCP.  It merely consists of a sequence number for each datagram,
> followed by the actual data.  TCP can't beat that ;-)

Um.  Yes.  It can.  Sliding windows.  Congestion control.

>> especially when
>> they see everything you added to UDP is already in TCP.
> I guess I'd have to admit that I kinda answered that above. . .

I'll have to admit that you didn't.

> ...and it's one that I already answered (and if you don't believe me,
> I'll dig up the URL) - the PPP network that dial-up users connect to
> isn't likely to start requiring congestion control anytime soon, since
> there is only one computer that can transmit on any given channel,
> so there's no contention to contend with :-)

Yet you have to connect to someone on the other side.  If I'm a
service provider, congestion control is a *feature*, since I've
probably got thousands of modems that need to share bandwidth nicely.
No, the PPP link may not need it (which I actually dispute), but the
ISP network *does*.

> Hmm ... that's actually a rather easy quantity to measure: try nslookup
> a few times, and see how many of them work without resorting to TCP.
> (You can just kill TCP at the firewall for a couple of minutes as you
> test, if you want to be sure.)  If you've got a reasonably close DNS
> server, none of them will fail.  The 20% statistic is probably only in
> the congested areas, for long-distance traffic.  With all the Jabber
> servers on the 'net, I'm sure you can find one that'll be able to receive
> most of your datagrams (and if not, just stay with your standard TCP
> connections - I'm not proposing that we eliminate them).  Arguing that
> UDP shouldn't be allowed simply because some people may not be able to
> use it productively isn't very wise, is it?

OK, let me try a different direction.  No, I don't want to force
people to use TCP.  There's just no benefit to server implementors,
administrators, or users, so why would anyone write that code?

> Dave, who wonders how he always rubs people the wrong way. . .

Because you seem to not be willing to allow for the possibility that
other people have thought things through already.

Joe Hildebrand
Chief Architect
Jabber, Inc.

More information about the Standards mailing list