[Moderator Action] Re: Continuing to draft mux WG charter

From: by way of Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (brian@hursley.ibm.com)
Date: Mon, Feb 15 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990215113451.034596a0@localhost>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:34:51 -0500
To: ietf-http-ng@w3.org
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com> (by way of Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>)
Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: Continuing to draft mux WG charter

spreitze@parc.xerox.com wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Well, I read it to imply TCP as the preferred transport. 

> 
> > 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?

I agree; and I'm suggesting the charter needs to say so.

    Brian