Hi, > ... > udp://host:port?UdpTransport.reliable=true&UdpTransport.encrption=aes25 > 6&UdpTransport.encryptionKey=somesecretkey > ...
I would also suggest to use URL parameters for things like encryption scheme or reliability patterns. The Protocol scheme in the URI would be overloaded when trying to encoding all possible options into it. We also do have some of those parameters already (e.g. Packetizer.maxPacketSize) I would not use UdpTransport.encryption, but PacketEncryption.Algorithm or something like that, because UDP and Security are two separate things. > * reliability (delivery guaranty) > * encryption > * tamper resistance (mac) > * session / connection management > * authentication > > anyone got any more? Looks good from my point of view. Kay, what options did you think of? Cheers, Holger > On 11/3/2010 4:36 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi, > > an issue concerning the URI: Right now, only the transport protocol > is part of the URI (e.g. tcp:://...). > > > > Shouldn't there be a hint to the application protocol, e.g. > etch_tcp:://... which seems more appropriate? The question arises e.g. > with the UDP extensions, which could provide different application > semantics like "reliable_etch_udp" or "maybe_etch_udp". These protocols > could use different headers, so it could be needed to distinguish > between different application protocols in the URI. > > > > Best regards, > > Kay Weckemann > > BMW Group > > Research and Technology > >
