Well that is precisely what distinguishes an 'architecture' from a collection
of ad hoc heuristic approaches.
It is not necessarily going to be the case that every Internet protocol is
going to precisely map to the Internet architecture. In fact I would suggest
that people are never going to fix FTP.
But what you can do with an architecture is to tell application designers,
'here is the Internet, here is how you plug your stuff into our stuff and this
is what you can expect to happen when you do it that way and you can expect it
to continue to work that way for the indefinite future'.
Sure there are going to be legacy exceptions, but there is a big difference
between having a system with six legacy protocols that are not quite compliant
and one where new incompatibilities are being established every day.
________________________________
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch(_at_)muada(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thu 11/13/2008 4:34 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Behave WG; IETF Discussion; Routing Research
Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
On 13 nov 2008, at 22:15, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Well yes, that is precisely the reason I beleive that we need to
take a look at a higher level and decide on one single answer
A single answer? That doesn't seem compatible with what the internet
has evolved into over the past decades.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf