Subject: Re: [arch-d] Valid and Invalid Internet architectures and approaches

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:08:47 +0100

At 21:07 08/12/2005, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>  In the first, one draws separate boxes for computers A and B, and 
> smaller boxes within each of them for the local instance of 
> subsystem X (e.g. the internet layer). This is a level of detail 
> which I claim is wholly inappropriate for (most) thinking about 
> architectural issues. The other kind of diagram is the one where 
> HTTP is a box above TCP which is a box above IP - and that's the 
> kind that is useful in architectural thinking.

This depends on what you call "subsystem X". If you consider 
"subsystem IP" or "subsystem TCP", they are appropriate. They show 
that the real architectural basis is not IP but the transported data, 
whatever the technology (IP or others) or the transport management 
(for example ISP rotation). The interapplication layer (above 
applications) is to present them to the usage layers.

I define "stream type" what would fully define an end to end exchange 
characteristics (whatever the technology and the protocol). I try to 
review the different stream types. A list could be (subject to discussion)

- (pseudo) synchronous [ex. http] or asynchronous [ex. mail] process
- simplex (broadcast, TV, mailing) or duplex (web access)
- alternative (question/answers) or full time (interrupts)
- structured (packet protocol) or one shot (UDP)
- reliable (TCP, FEC) or unreliable.
- continuous (data stream) or discreet (files, messages) - I can use EOF
- sure (end to end authentication) or not.

The idea would be to see if a single byte be used to sort protocols 
equivalences. This would greatly reduce the complexity of 
multitechnology interfacing and architecture (and transitions).
jfc

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss