Vint,
I'm sure you've been following the discussion concerning the confusion
that has been arising inside and especially outside the IETF community about
TCP/IP terminology. In reading RFCs 793,1122-3 it seems to me that TCP/IP
doesn't center so much around layering as it does protocols. Datagrams at
the transport and Internet layer, for example. Micheal Py is a follower of
the OSI model and while I believe in innovative freedom and eveyone or
anyone can design a model, I'm behind TCP/IP. I've even been thinking about
writing a draft that would be a call to the internet community for more
standardization of TCP/IP to clear up terms and layering discrepancies, at
least discrepancies to me anyway.
For example Vint, If someone said to me "datagram." I would have no idea
what he was talking about unless he said UDP or TCP datagram or IP datagram.
Then knowing the model I would understand.
I have been criticized for being too particular about things and too
"trolling." I only want TCP/IP to be able to survive and compete. In a world
of IPX, SPX, OSI, NetBUEI, etc. TCP/IP should be able to run on any
Intranet, Extranet, and of course the Internet, with the best of them.
- Bill