diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/en')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md | 39 |
1 files changed, 19 insertions, 20 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md b/content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md index 9d51f64..da9e178 100644 --- a/content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md +++ b/content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md @@ -574,12 +574,11 @@ that the Apache or Nginx developers would need to do is call accept() and read/write/select/epoll etc calls, instead of having to handle sockets and all their options. That's what the bind() and register() calls in Ouroboros do for Ouroboros applications: you bind some -program to that name _from the command line_, you register the name in -the layer (equivalent of creating the socket) _from the command line_ -, and all the (server) program has to do is call _flow\_accept()_ and -it will receive incoming flows. It is this change in the RINA API -that inspired us to name our very first public presentation about -Ouroboros, at FOSDEM 2018, +program to a name _from the command line_, you register that name in +the layer _from the command line_ , and all the (server) program has +to do is call _flow\_accept()_ and it will receive incoming flows. It +is this change in the RINA API that inspired us to name our very first +public presentation about Ouroboros, at FOSDEM 2018, [IPC in 1-2-3](https://archive.fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/ipc/). When we tried to propose them to the RINA community, these changes @@ -623,7 +622,7 @@ like the HTTP methods PUT/GET/DELETE/POST/... there is nothing _fundamental_ about it. It might as well have just one method, _[execute](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html)_. It's taste, and it definitely wasn't _my_ taste. I found that it only -proved my long-holding observation that for every engineer there were +proved my long-holding observation that for every engineer there are at least three overengineers. I made a bold prediction to Sander: one day, we would kick CDAP out of the Ouroboros prototype. @@ -750,17 +749,17 @@ located_? If it was in the _application_, it would be outside of SC6, which was dealing with networks, if it was in the network, it would be dealt with _only_ in SC6. It was a turf battle battle between two ISO groups, and because Application Entities were usually drawn as a set -of circles, and the boundary between the network application as a -line, that battle was internally nicknamed -- boys will be boys -- the -_balls-in, balls-out_ question. If you ever attended one of John's -presentations, he would take a short pause and then continue: "this -was the only time that a major insight came from a turf war": _the -balls were on the line_. The Application Entity needed to be known in -both the application and the network. Alas! Our implementation was -clearly showing that this was not the case. The balls were _above_ the -line, the _network_ (or more precise: the flow allocator) doesn't need -to know _anything_ about application entities! Then and there, Sander -had found a mistake in RINA. +of circles, and the boundary between the network and the application +as a line, that battle was internally nicknamed -- boys will be boys +-- the _balls-in, balls-out_ question. If you ever attended one of +John's presentations, he would take a short pause and then continue: +"this was the only time that a major insight came from a turf war": +_the balls were on the line_. The Application Entity needed to be +known in both the application and the network. Alas! Our +implementation was clearly showing that this was not the case. The +balls were _above_ the line, the _network_ (or more precise: the flow +allocator) doesn't need to know _anything_ about application entities! +Then and there, we had found a mistake in RINA. Ouroboros now had a crisp and clear boundary between the flow in a _DIF_, and any connections using that flow in the layer above. Flow @@ -805,7 +804,7 @@ fragmentation in IP and only retransmit the bytes in that fragment. But the code was again speaking otherwise. It was basically telling us: TCP was independent of IP. But fragmentation should be in TCP, and IP should specify its maximum packet size. Anything else would result -in an intolerable mess. So that's how we split the _Flow and +in an intolerable mess. So that's how we split the _Flow and Retransmission Control Protocol_ (FRCP) and the _Data Transfer Protocol_ (DTP) in Ouroboros. Another mistake in RINA. @@ -827,7 +826,7 @@ part. RINA is not controlling _ALL_ IPC; there is IPC _outside of RINA_. Another way of seeing it, is like this: If a set of processes (IPCPs) are needed to provide reliable state synchronization between two applictions A and B, who is providing reliable state -synchronization between A and the first IPCP? If it's again an IPCP, +synchronization between A and the IPCP? If it's again an IPCP, that's _infinite_ recursion! Now -- granted -- this is a rather _academic_ issue, because most (all?) computer hardware does provide this kind of preserving IPC. However, to me, even theoretical issues |