Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > The assumption that specialized protocols are needed for every > new application. That's irrelevant. The question is whether the application is complicated or not. > As an example, SIP is more complicated than it has > to be because there was a decision to support both UDP and TCP (and > other reliable transport protocols). SIP, of course, is an example of complicated protocol for experimental mbone used by people who did not (and still do not) understand the nature of multicast very well, which was fine as long as SIP had remained purely multicast research. Later, there was a desire to extract the fully capability of complicated telephone network by IP based protocols, which itself is wrong. And, SIP, which was designed for complicated multicast applications, was future complicated. It has little to do with TCP and UDP. The point is to make application requirements clearly simple, which was not the case with SIP. If you have complicated requirements, you are wrong. For example, if you think you have to simulate complicated telephone network protocols on the Internet, you are wrong. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf