Re: [TERNLI] question about layer focus

Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov> Tue, 13 June 2006 16:37 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqBtH-0005BJ-21; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:19 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqBtG-0005B9-9r for ternli@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:18 -0400
Received: from mx2.grc.nasa.gov ([128.156.11.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqBtD-0003qy-Vz for ternli@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:18 -0400
Received: from lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (seraph1.grc.nasa.gov [128.156.10.10]) by mx2.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AECC262 for <ternli@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.35]) by lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5DGbEl3001490; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5DGbEiK017484; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12364-29; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (gr2134391.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.44.123]) by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5DGbCcV017461; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 501) id E31324FCA9; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:36:33 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [TERNLI] question about layer focus
Message-ID: <20060613163633.GB13127@grc.nasa.gov>
References: <448EE1B6.1080100@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+QahgC5+KEYLbs62"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <448EE1B6.1080100@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Cc: ternli@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ternli@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
List-Id: Transport-Enhancing Refinements to the Network Layer Interface <ternli.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ternli>, <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ternli>
List-Post: <mailto:ternli@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ternli>, <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ternli-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:03:02AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
> 
> I noticed that the BOF title and description focuses on transport
> interactions with network layer indications.
> 
> However, some of the background reading suggests link-transport
> interaction. IMO, this has been the previous issue with some previous
> attempts near this solution space; is this difference being addressed in
> this BOF, or is the BOF setting a boundary (i.e., only transport-net and
> net-link are allowed, but not transport-link?)
> 

I think one idea that some people share is that while transport-link has
been used pretty frequently, implementing these hacks doesn't scale as
the number of link technologies with subtle differences grows, and so it
is architecturally vital to transition to a transport-net model where
link-independent signals are passed.

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems