It ought to be, but unfortunately we have confounded the transport
entity
namespace with the network entity namespace with the point of
attachment
namespace.
Not really. Many applications are actively managing their network
connections, and for a good reason. A network connection is not an
interface to an abstract "unified network". On the contrary, a network
interface implements a contract with a specific network.
It seems to me that you're agreeing with me. It's exactly because the
three
namespaces I mentioned are mashed together by TCP/IP that applications
have
to do what you describe, rather than just saying "open a connection to
Christian's laptop."
If "Christian's laptop" is the "transport" name space, and if the network
entity namespace use different network entity names to designate the various
"network contracts", then, yes, we probably agree. Although I am not sure that
we should place too much emphasis on the name of physical entities like
"Christian's laptop". What if the application process migrates from my laptop
to my desktop?
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf