Re: SIP API spec
Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> Wed, 27 January 1993 23:33 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06154; 27 Jan 93 18:33 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06150; 27 Jan 93 18:33 EST
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04200; 27 Jan 93 18:36 EST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19366; Wed, 27 Jan 93 15:33:27 PST
Received: from sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01491; Wed, 27 Jan 93 15:34:38 PST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1) by sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20570; Wed, 27 Jan 93 15:33:05 PST
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25092; Wed, 27 Jan 93 15:34:36 PST
Received: from ginger.lcs.mit.edu by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19268; Wed, 27 Jan 93 15:32:59 PST
Received: by ginger.lcs.mit.edu id AA29437; Wed, 27 Jan 93 18:31:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:31:20 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9301272331.AA29437@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr, craig@aland.bbn.com
Subject: Re: SIP API spec
Cc: ip-encaps@sunroof.eng.sun.com, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, sip@caldera.usc.edu
Content-Length: 1025
I would not like to reopen the "flow-id" debate just now, but the only thing we could agree upon was to let it "for further study". There are two extreme positions on this, which I could briefly portrait as "datagram" and "virtual circuit". ... As I said, we will probably not solve the question now. Which is why I find Bob's spec entirely acceptable -- it merely says "here are the bits that should go in the next packets". Aren't you worried that if you don't specify the semantics, either a) different people will write and deploy code that interprets the field in different ways, leading to interoperation problems down the line, or b) you will find that the syntax you have do not supprt the semantics you need (as is the case with the current IP TOS field)? I am getting the feeling that this specification is being thrown together in a real hurry in an attempt to 'win' some competition. I can't help but feel that this is the wrong road to take to produce a great design.... Noel
- SIP API spec Bob Gilligan
- Re: SIP API spec Christian Huitema
- re: SIP API spec Craig Partridge
- Re: SIP API spec Steve Deering
- Re: SIP API spec Craig Partridge
- Re: SIP API spec Christian Huitema
- Re: SIP API spec Bob Gilligan
- Re: SIP API spec Noel Chiappa
- Re: SIP API spec Bob Gilligan
- Re: SIP API spec Noel Chiappa
- Re: SIP API spec stev knowles