I think I agree with most of this and accept most of the pending points.
I only feel that simplicity/complexity will depend on the modelization
defining where OPES boarders are. If you include all the possible plugs it
may have to use in the design of a device, you will get a more complex
device. And you will not be sure it can be used worldwide. If you get it a
transformer and make it frequency indepedant you have probably more
chances. But you need to get local converters.
At 07:31 17/04/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:
> Personally, I think the best choice is a new transport named OCPTRAN
> that can run over TCP for data that needs reliable service and can
> also run over UDP or just IP if need be. I'm not sure where BEEP
> fits in this taxonomy - it seems to be orthogonal (in the sense of
> "not a branch point" rather than "useless").
I hear you, but when I read
http://www.clipcode.com/peer/beep_technical_whitepaper.htm
I feel guilty for not using BEEP and inventing yet another *TRANP. I
have not finished reading or digesting the paper though. If by "not a
branch point" you mean "we would still need to decide on BEEP
transport (BEEP over what)", then I agree.
Would you be so kind to give us a brief on your finding/feeling when
you are finished. I think it might help (me/us?) a lot. Thank you.
jfc