Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

[Chandrashekhar Appanna <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:59:35PM -0500, Mark Allman wrote:
> 
> > > Joe keeps making this point because it is _very important_.  Any
> > > feature which can be accomplished at Layer N can be accomplished at
> > > Layer N - 1, and vice-versa.  However, the Internet protocols have
> > > enjoyed tremendous success and longevity in part because they resist
> > > the urge to push application and other high-layer semantics into the
> > > lower layers.
> > 
> >   And still it is a matter of opinion as to which layer should have
> >   what beyond a point of debate. Lot of the current model has also
> >   historical significance that we try to justify now with good
> >   language and architecture.  But I do not disagree with your point
> >   but the repetition, to me, means that we are stuck at a stalemate
> >   and that is not interesting..
> 
> I agree with both Ethan's notes about the principles behind the
> decisions.  But, I think you are right that there is also an element of
> design style to these decisions.
> 
> What I really want to do here is to agree with your last bit.  We are
> spinning here.  It is not the first time we have gone in circles on this
> draft.  As far as I can tell this document has nearly no support in this
> WG.  I don't want to cut-off discussion if folks have something new to
> add.  But, most of the stuff (mine included) posted is just re-hash.
> So, I would like to ask folks to quit saying what they have said before.
> New points are welcome.  OK?
>

  My opinion is that this draft deserves a presentation and discussion
  at some IETF.

  0.02,
  Chandra.
 
> allman
> 
> 
> 



_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm