[TERNLI] question about layer focus

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 13 June 2006 16:04 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqBN6-000659-Q9; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:04:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqBN5-000654-Oq for ternli@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:04:03 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqBN4-0002O0-Eo for ternli@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:04:03 -0400
Received: from [128.9.168.63] (bet.isi.edu [128.9.168.63]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k5DG39624213; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <448EE1B6.1080100@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:03:02 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ternli@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig8FBD9126A61CCAC1491D4AF1"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Subject: [TERNLI] question about layer focus
X-BeenThere: ternli@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

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?)

Joe