Jon Crowcroft (jon@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK)
Sat, 10 Sep 88 17:25:59 +0100
hear hear here - lets here a technical discussion - we are computer
*scientists* are'nt we...
i dont understand why both iso7498 fans and rfc79? fans are so
partisan, rather than regarding both worlds as partial solutions to
be implemented/converged to by vendors, whatever, and getting on with
how we could
both do better next time (being a scientist by training, i dont believe in
'getting it right' - see Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge, pp1 to about 800).
Just how is TP4 'broken' (apart from unreliable close, and packet
mode rather than byte stream, and a reference number rather than
So whats wrong with CLNP, cept maybe it mandates a few things that
weren't mandated in IP/ICMP.
So whats so good about everyone and their brother building wrong
transaction protocols over UDP because they claim TCP costs too
much, doesnt do transactions etc
You guys in the US shouldnt have to worry over the X.25 alternative,
but in Europe, we gonna have hi-speed ISDN to map 7498 into - now
theres a problem to think about, do we want TP4/CLNP over a reliable
640 Mbps bit pipe to carry video and bronze-medallion reference
models, or X25 pkt and LLC levels, or might we want to listen to what
the Dave Clarks and Cheritons of the world are messing with...
i guess marshall is right that ISO represents the Big picture,
but its a Cecil B. de Mille picture that lasts about 20 years, except
for being remembered by a few old dears at xmas - where's the Citezen Kane
of protocol architectures
(ow, mixed metaphors arent part of physics training)
sorry to rant on, i hate working on saturdays
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:43:14 GMT