RE: Drafting mux WG charter

From: Yaron Goland (yarong@microsoft.com)
Date: Mon, Feb 15 1999


Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D08792F14@RED-MSG-59>
From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
To: "'spreitze@parc.xerox.com'" <spreitze@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: ietf-http-ng@w3.org
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:09:16 -0800
Subject: RE: Drafting mux WG charter

It is interesting for the same reason that muxing in general is interesting.
Perf.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spreitze@parc.xerox.com [mailto:spreitze@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 3:43 PM
> To: Yaron Goland
> Cc: ietf-http-ng@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Drafting mux WG charter
> 
> 
> 
> > My personal interest in MUXing is to re-use a single TCP 
> connection to some
> > MUX port as a mechanism to simulate arbitrary TCP 
> connections to arbitrary
> > ports.
> 
> Ah.  Why would this be an interesting thing to do?
> 
> 
> > I believe I understand where you are going with the 
> security language and I
> > even think I agree. But the current text definitely needs 
> some help. However
> > enough people are already beating on you about that one 
> that I'm sure you
> > have gotten the point.
> 
> Actually, I haven't heard from my biggest security critic 
> (Chris Newman) since I made the Feb 12 draft, in which I 
> thought I had managed to say what I think Chris and I are 
> thinking on the issue.  If you think it *still* needs work, 
> sigh, please say how.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
>