Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Requirement for Using Existing Protocols

From: "Hemant Chaskar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:31:13

Hi James:

In IETF, don't we always do the best of our effort to reuse existing 
protocols whenever applicable. I think this requirement (more precisely a 
practice) is true for ANY protocol that IETF works on. What is so special 
about this requirement in CAR discovery? Shouldn't we be quoting only those 
requirements that are specific to CAR discovery, usual practices being well 
understood.

Also, what is exactly the meaning of inventing new protocol? How do you 
define a novelty of a protocol? I think as long as the protocol uses 
existing IP modules like say TCP, UDP, ICMP, DHCP, IPSec, Routing etc. it is 
not a new invention. How messages are sent using these tools, what 
information they carry and how they need to be processed solely depends upon 
the problem at hand. If this can be reused as well from other protocols that 
is even better.

Hemant

>From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [Seamoby] Requirement for Using Existing Protocols
>Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:42:10 -0800
>
>This requirement is meant to encourage re-use of existing protocols
>wherever possible.
>
>     The Seamoby CAR Discovery solution MUST re-use existing protocols
>     wherever possible. As part of drafting the solution, existing
>protocol
>     MUST be examined for their match with the requirements, and
>     modifications SHOULD be proposed in preference to inventing
>     new protocols.
>
>             jak
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seamoby mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:20:21 -0800

> requirements that are specific to CAR discovery, usual practices being
well

I have seen other requirements statements in which this was included. As
I indicated in my message to Dirk, I think
we could move this to the introduction section as a process goal, rather
than as a specific requirement on the solution.

> the problem at hand. If this can be reused as well from other
protocols that

There is a difference between using a protocol and modifying a protocol
so that it will support a particular set of requirements. What I'm
suggesting is that part of the process should be examining where
existing protocols might be modified, with the goal of being
conservative and not introducing more complexity than necessary. Of
course, even if a new protocol is required, we can and will use other
protocols, such as TCP. That's not the issue.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:20:21 -0800

jak