From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:03:29 PST To: Brian E Carpenter <email@example.com> Cc: Chris Newman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Spreitzer <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com 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?