That was interesting. Thanks for bringing it up. The IP vs IPX discussion was particularly interesting since I was advocating IPX at the time within HP. It was largely a political fight though. The ARPA/Unix faction strongly lined up with IP simply because it was associated with Unix. Technical merit was not necessarily a winning argument.
That was a fun time. For example, as we worked on TCP/IP we realized we needed ARP, but it didn't exist, so we created our own. Cheers, Bob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of marbux Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:05 PM To: Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group Subject: [Eug-lug] RFC 5218 -- What Makes for a Successful Protocol? New IETF RFC: "The Internet community has specified a large number of protocols to date, and these protocols have achieved varying degrees of success. Based on case studies, this document attempts to ascertain factors that contribute to or hinder a protocol's success. It is hoped that these observations can serve as guidance for future protocol work." <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5218.txt>. It's an interesting read. Successful protocols evaluated include: Inter-domain: IPv4 [RFC0791], TCP [RFC0793], HTTP [RFC2616], DNS [RFC1035], BGP [RFC4271], UDP [RFC0768], SMTP [RFC2821], SIP [RFC3261]. Intra-domain: ARP [RFC0826], PPP [RFC1661], DHCP [RFC2131], RIP [RFC1058], OSPF [RFC2328], Kerberos [RFC4120], NAT [RFC3022]. But it's the factors identified that makes this an interesting informational RFC. Best read with a monospace font because of ASCII illustrations. Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org> _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
