Subject: Re: Last Call: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networ ks to Proposed Standard

From: hunter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:12:58 -0800

At 11:23 AM 2/28/01 -0800, Bill Nowicki wrote:
>...
>The important point is that IETF deals with **PROTOCOLS**, not host
>interfaces. Yes, the protocols should be implementable with good
>performance. But host interface problems should be fixed by fixing the host
>interfaces.

The previous claim seemed to be that the **PROTOCOLS** (by the way, do
those asterisks indicate swear words?) don't use the better 1394 facilities.

So how can the claimed problems be fixed by fixing the hosts, when the
**PROTOCOLS** don't use those better facilities?

>For example, doing some of the OS or interface chip
>optimizations that Ethernet has been doing for many years. Making the
>protocols more complicated to work around host interface limitations seems a
>bad choice.

Which "host interface limitations"?  (I'd be interested in bringing these
issues up in the relevant 1394 working groups.)

>On balance I have to agree with Eric on this.

If you're agreeing with Eric, not Erik, then you're in favor of delaying
the IPv6 over 1394 proposal?

David Hunter