Re: [EME] EME charter

The same could be said of NATs, with the same result. Substantial impact
on the Internet architecture that we then spend years trying to
circumnavigate and/or explicitly support.

In both cases, the onus shifts on us to do lots of work to support
others who are making money, IMO.

Joe

Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 11/13/06 1:29 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU> wrote:
>> The real reason is that some middlebox designer somewhere thought they
>> knew better than the person at the endpoint about what an E2E
>> communication was supposed to do.
> 
> I think a lot of what's driving this has more to do with 1) maladapted
> business models, and 2) perceptions around security, actually.  This is
> particularly true around voice where on the one hand there's a higher
> level of comfort with control plane/data plane separation and on the
> other a tendency to solve problems that crop up by dropping more stuff
> into the network (and granted, it's a lot easier to add new things than
> it is to remove or change existing ones).  The enterprise case is somewhat
> more complicated since there's a different relationship with users (they
> aren't customers in the traditional sense) and there's a different
> relationship to the network's assets.  I think that a lot of what's going
> wrong on networks today, at least around middleboxes, has economic
> roots rather than technical ones.  I don't have a clue what to do about
> that.
> 
> Melinda

-- 
----------------------------------------
Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

Re: [EME] EME charter

Attachment: signature.asc