RE: [NSIS] layer split summary? opinions?

dear all,

some points on terminology and trying to clarify exactly what question is being discussed:

1. The framework describes 'the NSIS transport layer' as *everything* below the signalling application layer and above the IP layer (e.g. figs 2/3). What we (or at least, I) am trying to discover is what functionality should be in this layer, *however* it is structured internally.

2. suggesting that a 'simple' basic NTLP sublayer of some sort could be run over TCP (or SCTP) is a very interesting design constraint for that sublayer. (In the purest form, where the sublayer operates entirely over one or more TCP connections, I suspect it is an engineering impossibility, mainly for addressing/peer discovery reasons. This is one reason why the framework document does not draw such a strict layered picture.) But it's a question about designing the NTLP, *not* what functionality it should encapsulate. (Shameless plug: We have tried to list some of the issues about this and other possible approaches in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcdonald-nsis-ntlp-considerations-00.txt.)

3. *Whatever* of these approaches is taken, it doesn't affect the apparent consensus that an NSLP should be able to call on some combination of lower layers (whatever you call them) which provide these classic transport-like functions. (What I get from Georgios is that he'd like them to be somehow optional to use. But I'll write a separate mail on that.)

I'd like to proceed on the basis that the assumption in (3) is correct.

Cheers,

Robert H.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Georgios Karagiannis (ELN)
> [mailto:Georgios.Karagiannis@eln.ericsson.se]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 13:52
> To: 'Henning Schulzrinne'
> Cc: nsis@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [NSIS] layer split summary? opinions?
> 
> 
> Dear Henning
> 
> >> However, your statement does add a requirement to 
> >> NTLP: namely, that it  should be able to use either 'raw' IP 
> >> or an existing transport 
> >> mechanism, such as UDP, TCP or SCTP (or possibly one of 
> the emerging 
> >> UDP-like, congestion-controlled protocols being discussed 
> in TSVAREA).
> 
> Yes I agree!
> 
> Best Regards,
> Georgios
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> nsis@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
> 
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis