<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/08/2024 07:02, Phillip
Hallam-Baker wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMm+LwgAaF_OY3ViFNwmxxN9BPSD_QixDr0rqUcNi-ZWnUKssQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I don't
think TLSsimple is what we need.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think a huge mistake that is made is that people think they
want a connection-oriented protocol. Almost all applications are
datagrams - discrete packets of some length that are more or less
independent of any other packets.</p>
<p>Obviously, web is datagrams - each request, each page, each
recursive insert, etc. Even live voice/video is datagrams as the
robust protocols are lossy, and the normal arrangement is a subset
of all the packets. Songs and movies are just big datagrams, so
write a jumbo-datagram protocol over small datagrams, it's a
month's work by a good intern.<br>
</p>
<p>What happens however is that people assume TCP (or TLS) for
"reliability" and don't get it. So they are forced down the path
of adding a reliable datagram protocol over the top of an
unreliable connection protocol. The end result is a mess as two
complex layers fight each other.<br>
</p>
<p>Nicely, nowadays, we can say - look at SPDY. (It almost exactly
mirrored the work I'd done & aired on this group a decade back
called SDP1. And has the advantage of brand and a big adoption
win.<br>
</p>
<p>iang</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>ps; an old datagram on bad connections
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://iang.org/ssl/reliable_connections_are_not.html">https://iang.org/ssl/reliable_connections_are_not.html</a><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>