On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 07:00:56 EDT, Keith Moore said:
> and a technology that only works correctly on the server end seems
> like a matter for the server's network rather than the public
> Internet - and therefore not something which should be standardized by IETF.
Much the same logic can be applied to NAT (the way it's usually implemented).
Both have issues, both have proponents, and both will be done even more brokenly
if there's no standard for them.
Personally, I'd rather have the IETF issue verbiage saying "Do it this way",
than have 50 million content providers all implement it in subtly different
and broken ways.
"You are trapped in a twisty little maze of proxies, all different..." ;)
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
- breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- RE: breaking the IP model (or not) Bernard Aboba
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Erik Fair
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Scott Brim
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Scott Brim
- Re: recommendation against publication of ... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Derrell D. Piper
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Fred Baker
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Joe Touch
- Re: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-n... Dave Crocker
- Re: recommendation against publication of draft-ce... Keith Moore
- prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
