Subject: [midcom] Protocol Eval: 3 Conclusions

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:56:52 +0200

The overall statistics looks good at the first view. But consider the 
following points:
- If a protocol fails one of the requirements, it can be used at all, or 
we adapt the requirements. But this can't be the way, since the 
requirements are not made out of pure air, but rather by facts. So one 
'failed' or 'F' should in a result like: Sounds good, but an important 
feature is missing!

- If a protocol has more 'T' than other, but some 'P' or 'P+' as well, 
we should have a look onto these 'P' or 'P+' as well. I think somebody 
else has mentioned this earlier! It might be that one of these partials 
is something we really need, so there is a lot space for discussions.

The pure numbers may not be that good for deciding the protocol. Mary 
has made a good textual comparison between these protocols which 
highlight this topic of 'we have to look behind the scenes'.

This will be the last email off this thread from my side. Looking 
forward to all the discussions and I hope you don't feel bored through 
all these comments.

Cheers
Martin

-- 
Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories  [email-masked]
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de  IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de

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