I've always thought a problem with Nagel's algorithm is, that the socket API does not (really) have a function to flush the buffers and send everything out instantly, so you can use that after messages that require a timely answer.
For stuff where no answer is required, Nagel's algorithm works very well for me, but many TCP channels are mixed use these days. They send messages that expect a fast answer and other that are more asynchronous (from a users point of view, not a programmers).
Wouldn't it be nice if all operating systems, (home-)routers, firewalls and programming languages would have high quality implementations of something like SCTP...
> the socket API does not (really) have a function to flush the buffers and send everything out instantly, so you can use that after messages that require a timely answer.
I never thought about that but I think you're absolutely right! In hindsight it's a glaring oversight to offer a stream API without the ability to flush the buffer.
Yeah, I’ve always felt that the stream API is a leaky abstraction for providing access to networking. I understand the attraction of making network I/O look like local file access given the philosophy of UNIX.
The API should have been message oriented from the start. This would avoid having the network stack try to compensate for the behavior of the application layer. Then Nagel’s or something like it would just be a library available for applications that might need it.
The stream API is as annoying on the receiving end especially when wrapping (like TLS) is involved. Basically you have to code your layers as if the underlying network is handing you a byte at a time - and the application has to try to figure out where the message boundaries are - adding a great deal of complexity.
the whole point of TCP is that it is a stream of bytes, not of messages.
The problem is that this is not in practice quite what most applications need, but the Internet evolved towards UDP and TCP only.
So you can have message-based if you want, but then you have to do sequencing, gap filling or flow control yourself, or you can have the overkill reliable byte stream with limited control or visibility at the application level.
For me, the “whole point” of TCP is to add various delivery guarantees on top of IP. It does not mandate or require a particular API. Of course, you can provide a stream API over TCP which suits many applications but it does not suit all and by forcing this abstraction over TCP you end up making message oriented applications (e.g request /response type protocols) more complex to implement than if you had simply exposed the message oriented reality of TCP via an API.
TCP is not message-oriented. Retransmitted bytes can be at arbitrary offsets and do not need to align with the way the original transmission was fragmented or even an earlier retransmission.
I don’t understand your point here or maybe our understanding of the admittedly vague term “message oriented” differs.
I’m not suggesting exposing retransmission, fragmentation, etc to the API user.
The sender provides n bytes of data (a message) to the network stack. The receiver API provides the user with the block of n bytes (the message) as part of an atomic operation. Optionally the sender can be provided with notification when the n-bytes have been delivered to the receiver.
Is this a TCP API proposal or a protocol proposal?
Because TCP, by design, is a stream-oriented protocol, and the only out-of-band signal I'm aware of that's intended to be exposed to applications is the urgent flag/pointer, but a quick Google search suggests that many firewalls clear these by default, so compatibility would almost certainly be an issue if your API tried to use the urgent pointer as a message separator.
I suppose you could implement a sort of "raw TCP" API to allow application control of segment boundaries, and force retransmission to respect them, but this would implicitly expose applications to fragmentation issues that would require additional API complexity to address.
Well, it also has the advantage of providing pretty decent encryption for free through WSS.
But yeah, where that's unnecessary, it's probably just as easy to have a 4-byte length prefix, since TCP handles the checksum and retransmit and everything for you.
It's just a standard TLS layer, works with any TCP protocol, nothing WebSocket-specific in it.
You should ideally design your messages to fit within a single Ethernet packet, so 2 bytes is more than enough for the size. Though I have sadly seen an increasing amount of developers send arbitrarily large network messages and not care about proper design.
Meh I've worked enough with OpenSSL's API to know that I never ever want to implement SSL over TCP myself. Better let the WebSocket library take care of it.
The socket API is all kinds of bad. The way streams should work is that, when sending data, you set a bit indicating whether it’s okay to buffer the data locally before sending. So a large send could be done as a series of okay-to-buffer writes and then a flush-immediately write.
TCP_CORK is a rather kludgey alternative.
The same issue exists with file IO. Writing via an in-process buffer (default behavior or stdio and quite a few programming languages) is not interchangeable with unbuffered writes — with a buffer, it’s okay to do many small writes, but you cannot assume that the data will ever actually be written until you flush.
I’m a bit disappointed that Zig’s fancy new IO system pretends that buffered and unbuffered IO are two implementations of the same thing.
For stuff where no answer is required, Nagel's algorithm works very well for me, but many TCP channels are mixed use these days. They send messages that expect a fast answer and other that are more asynchronous (from a users point of view, not a programmers).
Wouldn't it be nice if all operating systems, (home-)routers, firewalls and programming languages would have high quality implementations of something like SCTP...