Tony,
A very quick question about your idea. Does this layer have a
protocol / interface to other elements on the network? Or are
you proposing something more like an abstract API?
thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net]
Sent: 26 August, 2003 21:12
To: 'Robert Honore'
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ipng(_at_)sunroof(_dot_)eng(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: Solving the right problems ...
Robert Honore wrote:
Perhaps this proposal really requires another working group or
something.
To be clear, I was not recommending where the work get done, that is why it
was sent to the IETF list. I only cc'd the IPv6 list because it ties into
the recent discussion. In fact it is not clear to me where this work belongs
because the IETF area structure is very focused around the current layers.
It is also not clear that a new area is required to create a new layer, but
maybe that would help focus work in both defining how such a layer would
interact both up and down, as well as name space and interaction protocols
along the lines of HIP/DHT/...
The only thing that was clear to me was that the efforts to change the
behavior of lower layers only makes them more complex while creating
unintended side effects. At the same time, an optional layer between app &
transport could provide the consistency that some apps require, without
changing the widely deployed and well refined lower layers.
Tony
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to
majordomo(_at_)sunroof(_dot_)eng(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com
--------------------------------------------------------------------