It's fine to pile up on the other SDO but I think this is a false argument. X.25 carried forward in the ITU bis/ter process wouldn't look like it did "then" it would look much more like something which worked adequately in gigabit networks, and we'd be using high speed comms pretty much the way we do because the fundamentals here are the same, no matter what the underlying substrate. I'm more concerned that we were going to variable length addresses in CLNP. John Scudder's presentation to IEPG a while back stressed that variability in the front part of a packet was anathema to fast path processing in the FPGA, you want constant shape headers to process them quickly. I think we'd have had to settle on fixed length addresses pretty quickly. You need a datagram model, you need a connection model, you need flow control, windows and sessions. X.25 was mired in HDLC links, it reflected the times. We're not in those times. Speaking of sessions, In reality, I feel QUIC is closer to the ISO reference session layer than a transport, and a remarkably good fit for X.400 on top. I don't have a problem with X.400, there are days I think that X.25 aside, it might have been better for us all if we'd adopted it rather than sticking to SMTP. =G On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:00 AM Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 9/20/2023 3:22 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > But as compared to other standards-making organizations, it's pretty > > clear that there's a need for organizations that DON'T do things the way > > they do. So imperfect alignment of IETF's organization of areas with > > other SDOs' alignment of areas is a feature. If IETF did things their > > way, we'd still be trying to communicate with X.400 over X.25. > > +1 > > -- Christian Huitema >
