> >> It ought to be, but unfortunately we have confounded the transport > >> entity > >> namespace with the network entity namespace with the point of > attachment > >> namespace. > > > > Not really. Many applications are actively managing their network > connections, and for a good reason. A network connection is not an > interface to an abstract "unified network". On the contrary, a network > interface implements a contract with a specific network. > > It seems to me that you're agreeing with me. It's exactly because the > three > namespaces I mentioned are mashed together by TCP/IP that applications > have > to do what you describe, rather than just saying "open a connection to > Christian's laptop." If "Christian's laptop" is the "transport" name space, and if the network entity namespace use different network entity names to designate the various "network contracts", then, yes, we probably agree. Although I am not sure that we should place too much emphasis on the name of physical entities like "Christian's laptop". What if the application process migrates from my laptop to my desktop? -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf