Re: Lost Layer?

In missive <[email protected]>, Detlef Bosau typed:

 >>I would like to discuss the talk
 >>http://rina.tssg.org/docs/JohnDay-LostLayer120306.pdf
 >>given by John Day.
 >>
 >>What do you think, e.g., of the claim
 >>> •
 >>> TCP was split in the Wrong Direction!
 >>> • It is one layer, not two.

should have been 3 - as per the transport services work - its clear
you need a sublayer convergence (as per day's work) but also the
socket layer needs revising badly to allow for a wider set of
transport service semantics than came out of the fast 
hack that bbn and berkeley did

the API needs to allow for lots of different ways to process packets
(multiple paths, out of order processing etc ) which would allow mptcp
and obviate the need for spdy etc etc
hopefully, there'll be a bof on this at upcoming ietf in london
http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services-01.pdf

 >>> – IP was a bad idea.

certainly the authors should have read IEN1 which would have led to a
much better identifier space (as revived in the ILNP work by ran
atkinson, 40 years later
http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/
 
 cheers

   jon