At 7:29 AM -0700 4/22/09, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >(1) As I pointed out in my previous message to Christian, address >selection is not (today) a transport-layer or application-layer function >in most cases. Given that this is currently an Internet-layer function, >I think it makes sense to analyze the issues with address selection (as >part of the whole address/interface/router selection process) in an >Internet Area group. If we find that one of the problems we have is >that the Internet layer doesn't have the right information to make these >decisions, then possibly some follow-on work might need to be chartered >elsewhere. So this may be simply one of those cases where address selection does not fit your model, but at what layer would you describe the ICE spec as working? Clearly, one aim in ICE is to provide a signalling-path mechanism for flow endpoint selection, which certainly relates to the question of address/interface selection. There is an old saw that my work is a cross-layer optimization; yours is a layer violation, and that guy's is a hideous hack. However we have arrived here, it seems at least reasonable to say that we currently have this work muddled across a variety of layers. If we can focus it and solve it at a single layer, the architecture gets easier and the protocol smog clear a bit. But I seem to be hearing that tackling the big problem is ocean-boiling; what I am not clear on is whether the end result of piece work shifts the pain or actually reduces the smog. Perhaps it is just me; this is not stuff I am following in any depth. But the impression I'm getting from following the thread is that there is some disagreement about how to structure the work to make sure it really does reduce pain, rather than just shift it around. regards, Ted Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf