From architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 05 06:40:05 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EuTTR-00085U-Lp; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 06:40:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EuTTP-00083X-Nb for architecture-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 06:40:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA01148 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 06:38:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EuTZ4-0006eM-UQ for architecture-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 06:45:56 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1EuTTE-0000eG-Ly; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 03:39:53 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060105112410.044edcf0@mail.jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:08:47 +0100 To: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa), architecture-discuss@ietf.org From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Subject: Re: [arch-d] Valid and Invalid Internet architectures and approaches In-Reply-To: <20051208200710.7B556872D8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20051208200710.7B556872D8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org At 21:07 08/12/2005, Noel Chiappa wrote: > In the first, one draws separate boxes for computers A and B, and > smaller boxes within each of them for the local instance of > subsystem X (e.g. the internet layer). This is a level of detail > which I claim is wholly inappropriate for (most) thinking about > architectural issues. The other kind of diagram is the one where > HTTP is a box above TCP which is a box above IP - and that's the > kind that is useful in architectural thinking. This depends on what you call "subsystem X". If you consider "subsystem IP" or "subsystem TCP", they are appropriate. They show that the real architectural basis is not IP but the transported data, whatever the technology (IP or others) or the transport management (for example ISP rotation). The interapplication layer (above applications) is to present them to the usage layers. I define "stream type" what would fully define an end to end exchange characteristics (whatever the technology and the protocol). I try to review the different stream types. A list could be (subject to discussion) - (pseudo) synchronous [ex. http] or asynchronous [ex. mail] process - simplex (broadcast, TV, mailing) or duplex (web access) - alternative (question/answers) or full time (interrupts) - structured (packet protocol) or one shot (UDP) - reliable (TCP, FEC) or unreliable. - continuous (data stream) or discreet (files, messages) - I can use EOF - sure (end to end authentication) or not. The idea would be to see if a single byte be used to sort protocols equivalences. This would greatly reduce the complexity of multitechnology interfacing and architecture (and transitions). jfc _______________________________________________ Architecture-discuss mailing list Architecture-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss From architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 31 07:42:48 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F3uqO-0007mW-L2; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:42:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F3uqK-0007fR-Dk; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:42:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11883; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3v17-0001K4-BI; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:53:54 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1F3upe-0006W3-UA; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:42:03 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060131132315.0681a460@mail.jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:41:43 +0100 To: ietf@ietf.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3AD468A3 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: Subject: [arch-d] learning about real world NGN issues from the Indian questionnaire X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org I can only suggest everyone, wanting to get a practical and real world summary of the NGN deployment issues, to read this document/questionnaire by the Indian Regulatory Authority. (http://www.trai.gov.in/cpaper12jan06.pdf) - 89 pages. The response of the ISOC Member Roland H. Alden who indicated the link is also of high interest (http://www.ralden.com/C5/TRAI/default.aspx) (no pdf for the time being) to understand the interests at stake. FYI Mr. S. N. Gupta says he will accept comments until Feb. 13th: they will all be published, except if requested otherwise. jfc At 17:05 30/01/2006, Roland H. Alden wrote: >(From the preface of the document itself) "...The valuable comments and >suggestions from various stakeholders are solicited by TRAI to arrive at >the recommendations regarding the appropriate policy and regulatory >steps towards NGN migration in the country. Your comments may be sent >through e-mail at trai09@bol.net.in or through fax at 011-26191998 by >3rd February 2006. The paper has also been launched on TRAI's website >(www.trai.gov.in). For any clarification, the stakeholders may contact >Mr. S. N. Gupta, Advisor (Converged Networks), TRAI at Tele: >011-26167914." _______________________________________________ Architecture-discuss mailing list Architecture-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss