Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1999-10-20-14:08:30 antirez:
>> I think (hope) it's possible to reach our goals even using UDP. Why to use
>> TCP if strong auth it's possible even using UDP? Also in a lot of case auth
>> and cryptografy isn't needed with some hosts so a 'modular' protocol may be
>> a good choice.
>
>But for a high-performance, reliable delivery, it'd be kinda silly
>trying to do it with UDP;
Actually, it seems kind of silly to use TCP for what is essentially a
connectionless protocol. We do need reliability, of course, but that
can be taken care of with application-generated ACKs, without a lot of
coding. We don't need the sequence numbers, sliding windows, or other
traffic shaping features of TCP. We also don't need to initiate
connections from the destination to the source.
The KIS principle should drive this decision. Which makes a simpler
protocol? Which makes a simpler implementation? Which will speed
syslog2's adoption? Let's learn from the lessons of SNMPv2 and not
repeat them.
IMHO,
--
Roger Marquis
Roble Systems Consulting
http://www.roble.com/
