Re: BEEP as OCP transport

[Alex Rousskov <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Marshall Rose wrote:
> > I think we are on the same page now. It would be great to hear from
> > others as well. Is anybody able to follow my lame attempts at
> > explaining the problem? Does anybody have horror stories to tell about
> > FTP (other than firewall problems)? Is there a reason we should not
> > use multiple BEEP channels per OCP connection _if_ BEEP is selected as
> > a transport protocol?
>
> if the answer is "FTP", then the wrong question has been asked.

Shoot. I deleted a sentence explaining that the multi-channel approach
is probably similar to what FTP uses (data channel + control channel).
I did not mean to suggest that we use FTP for anything; that would not
even be funny. Still, some FTP lessons might be useful.

> each beep session has a single encryption/authentication context.
> you negotiate it at the start of the session, and it applies to
> every channel thereafter, e.g.,
>
> 	beep channels
> 	beep frames
> 	tls packets
> 	tcp segments
>
> all traffic on all channels goes over the same tls session.

Great, that helps to keep per-channel overheads low.

Thank you,

Alex.