Well that is precisely what distinguishes an 'architecture' from a collection of ad hoc heuristic approaches.
It is not necessarily going to be the case that every Internet protocol is going to precisely map to the Internet architecture. In fact I would suggest that people are never going to fix FTP.
But what you can do with an architecture is to tell application designers, 'here is the Internet, here is how you plug your stuff into our stuff and this is what you can expect to happen when you do it that way and you can expect it to continue to work that way for the indefinite future'.
Sure there are going to be legacy exceptions, but there is a big difference between having a system with six legacy protocols that are not quite compliant and one where new incompatibilities are being established every day.
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thu 11/13/2008 4:34 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: v6ops@xxxxxxxx; Behave WG; IETF Discussion; Routing Research Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
On 13 nov 2008, at 22:15, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Well yes, that is precisely the reason I beleive that we need to
> take a look at a higher level and decide on one single answer
A single answer? That doesn't seem compatible with what the internet
has evolved into over the past decades.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf