Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:44:20 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: modularization Message-ID: <20041006164420.GA10568@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <41641DB3.2090303@he.iki.fi> References: <41640CEE.9070900@web.de> <4164106A.70901@cronyx.ru> <416415DA.9030109@web.de> <200410061628.i96GS3eo046161@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <41641DB3.2090303@he.iki.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:30:43PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote: > Garrett Wollman wrote: > > ><<On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:57:14 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald > ><Waldemar.Kornewald@web.de> said: > > > >>Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: > >>IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. > >>Just about everything as modules. > > > >It is not generally regarded as a good idea to make artificial > >boundaries between (e.g.) IP and TCP. > > > However from the success of the OSI/IP and related (CLNS, TP4, etc) > protocols it can said that it's a good way to fail. It's important to make a distinction between specification and implementation. Protocols should be designed and defined with clear boundaries between layers, but protocol handlers need not, and often should not, be implemented that way. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041006164420.GA10568>