so that each proposals DON'T have to cook On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, Patrick, > > Yes, a lot of LIS solutions as well as MPTCP and SCTP can be regarded as > session-like solutions. > > But, I'd like to see a more firm and precise definition of a 'legal' > session layer adopted so that each proposals have to cook their own versions > of session-like functionality. > > If a more rigorous session layer should be introduced, much of the works we > see now could be saved and people could concentrate more on more concrete > and deeper topics at hand. > > > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Patrick Frejborg <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > DY > -- DY
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
