Les,
> 1)Whether we should publicly document what smart implementers have done is > not relevant here (though I appreciate this thread has sparked interest). If > folks want to discuss this please do so in a separate thread. > The only point I am making is that there are implementations which have > already solved the problems you are trying to address by using TCP and have > done so w/o requiring protocol extensions. These implementations will not > benefit from your proposal. > You are the one who started this thread. You are the one who said that this solution is not necessary because you have your own proprietary secret solution to the problem. You cannot expect anyone to take that position seriously. Other people want the problem solved and references to secret solutions is simply teasing. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
