RE: draft-ietf-impp-im-01 (was: Re: WG Last Call on multiple docu ments (deadline Jan 12))

> I took that rough consensus to mean that we are now doing a service
> that has end-to-end homogeneity for content.  (To fall back on my
> usual references to email:  we are standardizing an equivalent to
> RFC822,  but not RFC821, though we ARE also standardizing the core
> semantics of a transfer service.)

I believe this is correct and a helpful analogy. We wanted to do the
equivalents of both 821 and 822, but the 821 piece blew up.  So the best
we've been able to do is to have an abstract quasi-821 that's intended to
provide some aid in gatewaying among the transport protocols.

I hope this sounds like I'm agreeing with you, because that's what I mean to
do.

--Mark




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]