Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Wed, 21 November 2007 05:00 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuhh1-0007hX-Tb; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:07 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuhh0-0007gS-Nl for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:06 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuhgz-0007aM-7k for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:05 -0500
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuhgy-0002zA-Mp for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:05 -0500
Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAL5038m001193; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:00:03 -0800
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60CB6122B35B; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8592F8AFA; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:35 -0500 (EST)
To: Chandrashekhar Appanna <achandra@cisco.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
In-Reply-To: <20071121031410.GJ26548@cisco.com>
Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
Song-of-the-Day: Walk on the Wild Side
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:35 -0500
Message-Id: <20071121045935.7F8592F8AFA@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1455866856=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

> > 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?

allman



_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm