Re: Lost Layer?

> Admittedly, I'm not interested in history, when a book contains to much
> of it, I simply ignore it.

So  we have a proposal to discuss John Day's "lost layer"  but
the proposer is not interested on his book at the same time

????



On 01/13/2014 07:25 PM, Detlef Bosau wrote:
> Am 13.01.2014 16:09, schrieb Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0):
>> I strongly suggest reading John Day's book "Patterns in Network
>> Architecture: A Return to Fundamentals."  It is not and easy read and has
>> a lot of history that you may or may not find useful.
> It is - with all due respect towards John - the "history" which is often
> difficult to read in John's publications.
>
> Admittedly, I'm not interested in history, when a book contains to much
> of it, I simply ignore it.
>
> Science is, as DPR said, about asking questions and finding answers. And
> a useful approach to asking questions is the
> - what
> - why
> - how
> approach.
>
> - what is the question?
> - why is it important, with particular attention to: If it is important,
> why isn't it solved or why are existing solutions not satisfactory?
> - how do I want to solve the problem.
>
> I had quite some off list discussions with John - and frankly spoken, I
> eventually resiled because I couldn't find a way to communicate with
> John in concise questions and selecting adequate solutions. This may be
> my fault, I'm perhaps a somewhat "difficult" person and perhaps I have a
> very individual way of thinking.
>
>> If you only look at
>> one portion, I suggest finding the short discussion of how the phone
>> number evolved from a location identifier to an application identifier -
> That's another point of interest. John is quite often interested into
> numbering and addressing problems. I'm, primarily, interested in
> congestion control. There are numbers. That's it. How is  it called in
> the HHTG? An SEP, IIRC.
>
> (Not to be misunderstood. Wrong numbering can lead to huge problems. But
> I'm not a religious person, so I'm no strong believer of
> "Correctnumberingism".)
>> (I think it is in the mobility section, but I don't have my copy handy).
>> .  In fact, you might want to jump here first then go read from the
>> beginning.  It should give you some insight as to why the current Internet
>> Architecture has so much difficulty with mobility and multi-homing which
>> is what originally drew me to this work.
> And afterwards, you are that much into the existing architecture that
> you fail to think otherwise.
>
> William, during the past 14 years I was strongly into VJCC, simulations.
> the e2e principle, or perhaps the first 13 of the past 14 years.
>
> About 2013 I started to put the whole thing in question.
>
> And the result was: I put the e2e principle in question and the more I
> think about it, and I got harsh reactions when I mentioned this
> to some people, the more I'm convinced: VJCC and offsprings was a
> wonderful work around for the congestion collapse problem and it
> deserves huge respect that it works until these days - however, the
> problem itself remains still unsolved and we need a crank back to about
> 1989 and a clean slate approach with the knowledge about networks of
> 2014 in mind.
>
>
>> In a nutshell,  Naming and Addressing needs to be done right and,
> Yes. But this is not the reason for congestion collapses to happen.
>
>>   IMHO, we
>> still haven't gotten it quite right.  Sometimes it looks like we are
>> getting close and then we stumble.  DTN sort of had a chance and missed.
>> Maybe Information Centric Networking work will help move naming and
>> addressing along.
> Delay tolerant networking may provide wonderful insights.
>
> However, the very first insight which I got into TCP (it was the first
> insight because after this insight I intentionally abolished anything I
> ever heard about TCP before) is that TCP is an asynchronous protocol.
> And where TCP is not asynchronous, it is wrong.
>
> Period.
>
> After this sort of "garbage collection" you can start again with the
> question: How can we convey a flow of bytes from one location to another -
> thereby taking advantage of some existing network underneath.
>
> And I intentionally forgot about all this self clocking and self
> scheduling nonsense - even about discussions of stability.
>
> In a sense, I'm better now :-)
>
> (Reminds me of a tooth which caused problems for me for certainly more
> than a decade. Eventually the upper half broke away and the lower half
> was dug out by an oral surgeon - however: The problems were gone :-))
>
> Perhaps, it's at least in part a matter of age. I turned 50 last year,
> be it a case of mid life crisis or reasonable for whatever reasons, on
> some occasions it is a good idea to clear out one's brain and start
> thinking from scratch.
>
>> Will
>>
>> ******************************
>> William D. Ivancic
>> Phone 216-433-3494
>> Fax 216-433-8705
>> Networking Lab 216-433-2620
>> Mobile 440-503-4892
>> http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/10/14 2:34 PM, "Detlef Bosau" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>> ­ IP was a bad idea.
>>> Detlef
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Detlef Bosau
>>> Galileistraße 30
>>> 70565 Stuttgart                            Tel.:   +49 711 5208031
>>>                                            mobile: +49 172 6819937
>>>                                            skype:     detlef.bosau
>>>                                            ICQ:          566129673
>>> [email protected]                     http://www.detlef-bosau.de
>>>
>