4 ms·
> It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed. See "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol", §8.3 TUBA Reviews: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/h
by throw0101d 3mo ago
> It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed.
See "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol", §8.3 TUBA Reviews:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752
The document explains why SIPP was chosen (with the tweak of 128-bit addresses instead of 64).
- Parodper 3mo agoVery interesting, thanks. I like they even admit their own bias, that the main reason was that they didn't want another's protocol; except for the word alignment, all the other issues are solvable.