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. BrianReceived on Sunday, 14 February 1999 10:39:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 6 May 2023 21:22:19 UTC