> However, with multihoming, the change may be a common occurance
> throughtout the lifetime of a connection depending on the application and
> the use of the multiple paths (failover, concurrent multipath transfer,
> etc). So TCP (or whatever transport) should not be blind to the fact that
> data
> That's why I think it makes more sense to backport the SCTP multihoming
> features to TCP so all TCP apps can use them without having to be
> changed, or even better: contain the changes in a separate shim layer
> so that all transport protocols can become address agile without having
> to be cha
>> o If one is revisiting the old ideas, they will most likely prefer
>> mailing list archives (due to its descriptive nature) than RFC.
>
> Ummm, no. Most IETF mailing lists are pretty inaccessible to non-WG
> participants because no one ever summarizes ideas before WG last call.
...
> (not
> let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant non-standards
> documents -- responsible position papers, white papers, new ideas,
> etc. -- become RFCs.
i.e. something like IPng white paper series?
On considering the feasibility ground, it is hard to standardize all
possible pet id
> But the main disadvantage of these systems lie that its knowledge database
> is too small and can only answer few questions. Internet may be the biggest
> knowledge database, so we proposed the DRIS, which will act as the
> knowledge source of such personal intelligent systems.
without lookin
> As far as I can tell from the information presented at this location: not
> really, although there could be significant synergy. The difference is
> that computer aided learning is still based on content developed by humans,
> while intelligent searching should be handled completely automaticall
> I am used to terminology use that derives from Shoch
Shoch convention of "names, addresses, routes" was
found to be ambigous in many contexts. Please refer
RFC 1498 - where Saltzer points out some of the
problems with shoch terminology. possibly, Noel's
end point name proposal can be of more
> Too bad nobody has ever thought of it
> before; we could really use the outcome
> of that research
while researchers has not thought about global
PKI, their are research which focus on spam
elimination.
this is the work all about (yesterday's seminar in a MIT group)
" If I don't know you, a
