> >As long as it is safe (i.e., follows good congestion control),
> >why should we care how many of these protocols are defined? After
> >we ensure the protocols are safe we can just let Darwinism take its
> >course.
>
> Because a customer with sufficient $ would inevitably request the
> Frobnitz Transport, since it garnered the IETF imprimateur and the
> code base would eventually collapse under the weight of all this
> "innovation".
Maybe I spoke too quickly above. The points I was trying to get at:
* TCP isn't necessarily the answer for every application.
* We don't need to try to make TCP (or TCPng) the answer for every
application.
* Maybe ALF is the way to go... But, I am not convinced that we
cannot provide transports that go a long way towards solving a
good chunk of the problems, such that most developers don't need
to develop their own protocols on top of UDP due to their
application's needs.
* So, I don't see a need for a TCPng, per se. But, if folks want
to write new transports that include different mechanisms (e.g.,
no strict ordering requirement) I think that is wonderful.
* I like the SCTP model (build something new) better than the
model where we try to develop TCPng (rework something old, make
sure it still works with the old stuff, etc.). This just seems
like The Way To Go at the transport layer to me.
allman
---
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/
