Re: Continuing to draft mux WG charter 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.


Received on Sunday, 14 February 1999 10:39:33 UTC