Hi Dy, I think the session layer thing is already happening, at least at the research level - it seems that separating identifier and locator is just another wording for adding a session layer to the stack. RPC is considered to be defined at the session layer - when updating a mapping database without the end user commanding it to update or when piggybacking existing transport protocols to update locator, aren't these typical RPC stylish actions?
Have a look on all proposals at RRG report, include also HIP - every proposal have some RPC stylish actions that are executed at a certain situation. It is interesting though, that the lack of a session layer generates that much stress on the routing system. Patrick On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Patrick, > > I'd agree with your session layer argument. The first thing the IETF should > acknowledge and have to do is to add the session layer to the current > Internet architecture. > > All other patch works can be stalled before we're done with the session > layer. > > Is there any champion who could bring this issue to the full awareness and > acceptance by the IETF? > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
