Re: [nbs] NBS and TCP connection identification

[Javier Ubillos <[e-mail]>]

For what it's worth:
I think having implementations in non-OS libraries/frameworks is an
option.
E.g. Java, .NET or as a library for C/C++.

// Javier

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 07:21 -0400, David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> If consensus is that this is the goal, then the BOF should have
> participation from OS vendors indicating an interest in taking on this
> burden. 
> 
> The BOF will also need to explain why this work belongs in IETF,
> rather than in other SDOs.
> 
> Christian's paper proposed changes to protocols, such as transport
> protocol handshakes.
> The BOF should explain in detail how the changes proposed would happen
> only on hosts, not on routers, switches, etc.
> 
> dbh
> 
> > And I think the plan is fairly simple:  Operating system 
> > vendors will take on the burden, since they will need to add 
> > name-based sockets to their operating systems.  But they will 
> > be incentivized:  Name-based sockets will simplify 
> > application development, which has always been an objective 
> > of operating system vendors.
> > 
> > Once operating systems support name-based sockets, we are 
> > good.  Of course, we want applications to adopt the new API 
> > -- and they eventually will because this will make the life 
> > of application developers simpler.  But there is no time pressure.
> > 
> > Finally, we won't change routers, neither will be require new 
> > infrastructure.
> > 
> > - Christian
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > nbs mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nbs
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nbs mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nbs