Mailing-List: contact etch-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: etch-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of wert1y@mac.com designates
 17.148.16.93 as permitted sender)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_01cAn2z6gBuGuFziWxdtbA)"
Message-id: <4CD1F587.2040203@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:51:35 -0500
From: scott comer <wert1y@mac.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12)
 Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
To: etch-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Application protocol URI
References: 
 <3D714700369F594EB00BE19F6903DAC3022F5028@SMUCM05V.europe.bmw.corp>
In-reply-to: 
 <3D714700369F594EB00BE19F6903DAC3022F5028@SMUCM05V.europe.bmw.corp>

--Boundary_(ID_01cAn2z6gBuGuFziWxdtbA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

well, "tcp:..." doesn't entirely mean tcp, but rather is just a 
conveniently picked name which is bound to a transport stack factory.

tls is tcp with tls stream encryption.

tcp2 is tcp as well, but with a selector scheme for managing sockets. 
tls2 is tcp2 with tls encryption.

your uri scheme is up to you, you can call it udp or something else. 
there is possibly a length limitation on schemes. and we can always 
argue about it later, so don't let it drag you down. mnemonic is ok, but 
i wouldn't go overboard. you can also use uri query terms to select options:

udp://host:port?UdpTransport.reliable=true&UdpTransport.encrption=aes256&UdpTransport.encryptionKey=somesecretkey

there are several main option groups:

    * reliability (delivery guaranty)
    * encryption
    * tamper resistance (mac)
    * session / connection management
    * authentication

anyone got any more?

mainly, both ends have to have more or less the same scheme and options 
selected. the best practice in a complex setup is to use the name 
service to abstract uris.

have fun!

scott out

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
>


--Boundary_(ID_01cAn2z6gBuGuFziWxdtbA)--