Something New - Welcome! Thank you Robert.
Betsy, your question was not stupid! I also lost some time deleting "Carrier
Class Gateway" email's. :/
j0rgeCarD0s0
:)
-----Original Message-----
From: Book, Robert
To: 'Betsy Brennan'; Ben Yalow
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Sent: 27-04-2001 22:09
Subject: RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Geez, the nerve of some people........ :-)
If I'm not mistaken, there have been all too many international
efforts to advance this TORPEDO protocol. Several years ago, there were
several Germans who took the lead in this field with some similar
efforts
from several Japanese. Eventually, the US protocol specialists
prevailed,
when supplemented by the use of other protocols, but the protocol was
not
submitted as an RFC and eventually fell into disfavor. It was determined
from empirical data gathered from field trials that the time and expense
of
recovering (defragmenting) the packets far exceeded the benefit of
utilizing
the transport media in certain networks.
This met the design criteria of the protocol. However, this
protocol
was based on a discrimination algorithm, referred to as WLOPWHYP (We
Like
Our Packets, We Hate Your Packets). Any invocation of this protocol in
one
direction was likely to elicit an disproportionate invocation of this
protocol in the other direction. I'm glad to see we've managed to effect
the
more egalitarian algorithm MPOKYPOK (My Packet's OK, Your Packet's OK.)
Personally, I believe it would significantly add to mine, and
many
other people's, happiness if we could all go to our deathbeds knowing
the
TORPEDO protocol never reached the status of an RFC (marginal acceptance
may
be possible if that RFC was submitted on April 1), and ever saw use in
the
field again.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled show already in progress......
-----Original Message-----
From: Betsy Brennan [mailto:bbrennan(_at_)nbn(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Ben Yalow
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway
I'm sure this is a stupid question (and I will probably get flamed for
this
email),
but what does this have to do with the IETF?
Ben Yalow wrote:
At 05:00 PM 4/26/01 -0700, Peter Deutsch wrote:
"Willis, Scott L" wrote:
Why Waste time with calculations, It's an American Ship! Swing the
16"
guns
and blow the Bridge. Bush can call it routine and not apologize for
it.
Errr, actually carriers don't have 16" guns, the battleships did.
There
*were* smaller caliber turrents on the older (e.g. WWII Essex class)
carriers for antiaircraft work, and the newer carriers have such
things
as Phalanx for the same reason, but definitely not something as big
as
16". Now, sending off a flight of F-15s with laser guided weapons on
the
other hand...
Actually, while the Essex class carried some smaller guns (5", and
then
lots
of smaller caliber), the largest guns on US carriers were on Lexington
(CV-2), and Saratoga (CV-3). Since they were originally laid down as
battle
cruisers, and later converted to carriers, they still had 8 8" guns.
- peterd
Ben
-----
Ben Yalow ybmcu(_at_)panix(_dot_)com