Re: Continuing to draft mux WG charter

From: spreitze@parc.xerox.com
Date: Fri, Feb 12 1999


From: spreitze@parc.xerox.com
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:03:29 PST
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Cc: Chris Newman <chris@innosoft.com>, Mike Spreitzer <spreitze@parc.xerox.com>, ietf-http-ng@w3.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Message-Id: <99Feb12.090339pst."834439"@idea.parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: Continuing to draft mux WG charter


> The draft is written very aggressively to assume TCP
> as the substrate; IMHO this is wrong. If a new transport protocol
> of the general flavour of T/TCP emerges, MEMUX must be able to use
> it.

Huh?  The draft is written very aggressively in terms of a general statement about the services expected from the underlying layer, rather than identifying TCP as *the* underlying layer.  I think that set of services is a "general flavour", and is delivered by T/TCP.

> Another thing I would like to see is a clear goal of being
> independent of IPv4 v IPv6, and able to function in a dynamic
> address environment such as NAT. In fact this is key to success.

I hadn't expected the protocol to carry any addresses, so I hadn't expected these kinds of issues to come up at all.  Wouldn't you agree that it goes without saying that wherever addresses *do* appear in current IETF work, the demands of the currently underway evolutionary steps of the Internet must be taken into account?