On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 18:04 -0700, John Beck wrote: > Jan> There might be concerns that poorly written network applications will > Jan> need to depend on milestone/network because they will fail if they don't > Jan> find certain peer. > > Sebastien> You stated that the reason you're keeping milestone/network is > Sebastien> to appease applications that depend on reachability to their peers, > Sebastien> and do this by depending on milestone/network. > > No; as both of you know, English is a confusing language, hard to learn as > it is easily given to ambiguities. In this case, what I think Jan meant was > something more like: > > We need to keep milestone/network for backwards compatibility, as > certain applications may have been written to depend on the service. > (One reason for such a dependency might well be a misguided idea > that it would ensure the ability to reach certain peers.) > > In other words, we are not keeping the service because of the indirect ability > to reach peers, but because of the direct compatibility issue which would be > caused if we were to remove the service.
Ah, that makes sense. I indeed had misinterpreted the intent of the language. Thanks for clearing that up for me. > Sebastien> The NWAM design seems to place all configuration of data-links and > Sebastien> IP interfaces as part of a LLP, and an IP tunnel is definitely > Sebastien> both of those things. So, according to the design, an IP tunnel > Sebastien> should be part of a LLP. At the same time, the NWAM architecture > Sebastien> describes an upper-layer profile as something that defines a > Sebastien> set of things that happen under certain conditions, such as the > Sebastien> configuration of IP addresses in a particular subnet, or which > Sebastien> physical links are connected. It would make sense to make the > Sebastien> configuration of an IP tunnel conditional on such criteria. > > You are following our architecture/design correctly so far. > > Sebastien> As such, I don't see the LLP vs. ULP distinction as being very > Sebastien> clear cut for IP tunnels, and I think I'd benefit from a whack on > Sebastien> the head by a heavy clue stick. :-) > > No, you don't need a whack; you have pointed out a gray area which we have > been trying to resolve. Stay tuned for more on this... Okay. Thanks. -Seb
