- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:32:03 +0000
- To: spreitze@parc.xerox.com
- CC: Chris Newman <chris@innosoft.com>, ietf-http-ng@w3.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org
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
Received on Sunday, 14 February 1999 10:39:33 UTC