- 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
> 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?
Received on Friday, 12 February 1999 12:05:52 UTC