On 10/30/08 12:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On (10/30/08 12:21), Darren Reed wrote:
If we're having ipadm, then we should also have tcpadm and udpadm.
transadm just doesn't fit (besides sounding like a toxic food ingredient.)
I prefer "xpadm" myself (lesser typing) but that sounds like the
adm for a trade-marked OS :-)
However, the idea was to have an administrative interface that was
approximately one per OSI layer, and the motivation was that these
interfaces, at least for the TCP/IP family of protocols, would
operate on a similar set of objects.
If that is the case then "ipadm" is named incorrectly.
netadm/transadm or ipadm/tcpadm/udpadm/...
Darren
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
