incubator-etch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Holger Grandy <Holger.Gra...@bmw-carit.de>
Subject RE: Application protocol URI
Date Thu, 04 Nov 2010 07:07:17 GMT
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, Kay.Weckemann@bmw.de 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
> >


Mime
View raw message