Subject: flexibility

From: "M. Scott Corson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:26:29 -0400 (EDT)

Something bothers me about my quick reply to Ram's comment, and I don't
want it to be misinterpreted.  Yesterday, I referred to cramming too 
much stuff into one *protocol* as being little different from a 
stovepipe system.  I said this because, for simplicity, sometimes there
is a tendency to avoid defining clear interfaces at points where
flexibility is needed in an architecture...and I was thinking of a 
fully-integrated protocol stack or kernel--from hardware to application--
when I used the word protocol.  It's not always clear where to 
put the flexibility, where to fix things more firmly and how much
functionality to put into a single protocol versus defining multiple
cooperating protocols.  I do think that because the space of MANET
contexts is large and will be evolving , there will likely be need for
more than one protocol, and the set of applicable protocols may change over 
time as well.  Thus the appeal of having some flexibility in the approach
in a domain where there is such an overwhelming need for efficiency.

I'm curious if others have opinions as to where the best point are 
in an overall architecture to put flexibility, and where things should
be fixed more firmly.

-Scott

*******************************************************************************

M. Scott Corson                                 Institute for Systems Research
[email-masked]                              A.V. Williams Bldg. (115)
Phone: 301-405-6630 (Rm. 2205 AVW)              University of Maryland     
Fax:   301-314-8586                             College Park, MD  20742

*******************************************************************************