Very well put, John! This is the kind of thinking we need. And the
kind of clear explication of the thinking that is essential for good progress.
Cordially, Joaquin
Given parties A, B, and C where separate protocol exchanges can
occur between parties A and B, and between parties B and C...
I just don't think that every B has to be able to talk to every A and
be able to talk to every C.
This is probably easiest to state in first order predicate logic...
Given parties A, B, and C where separate protocol exchanges can
occur between parties A and B, and between parties B and C; it
must hold that a single instance of a transitive relationship must exist
between every A and some C through some B, and it must also
hold that there is a reverse transitive relationship instance from
every C to some A through some B, and that every B participates
in one of those relationships... ohhh... that's a transitive closure.
In other words: the transitive closure of all As includes all Cs
through all Bs. Hence it matters not what the transport actually is,
just that this constraint holds.
I think that's a good argument against mandating a transport.
What needs to be mandated to ensure interoperation is that...
An A must be able to talk to a B.
A B must be able to talk to an A and a C.
A C must be able to talk to a B.
I'll see about working that into charter style text tomorrow.
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
