Robert Honore wrote: > Perhaps this proposal really requires another working group or > something. To be clear, I was not recommending where the work get done, that is why it was sent to the IETF list. I only cc'd the IPv6 list because it ties into the recent discussion. In fact it is not clear to me where this work belongs because the IETF area structure is very focused around the current layers. It is also not clear that a new area is required to create a new layer, but maybe that would help focus work in both defining how such a layer would interact both up and down, as well as name space and interaction protocols along the lines of HIP/DHT/... The only thing that was clear to me was that the efforts to change the behavior of lower layers only makes them more complex while creating unintended side effects. At the same time, an optional layer between app & transport could provide the consistency that some apps require, without changing the widely deployed and well refined lower layers. Tony