| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
> > by the details i meant silly stuff such as how the protocols > > actually work to support this. > > > > Isn't that the point of the discussion. > > I thought it starts with definitions: > > - what should bear a name > > - what should have an adress > > - what is the address hierarchy or does it need a hierarchy > > - what are communication requirements > > Answering the above gives guidelines for protocols? > > this is old old old ground. i agree, but... > write when new ground is broken. ...but since the old ground was never successfully cultivated, merely broken, it's inevitable that newcomers to the field or to this topic will revisit the same now-obvious observations and the same failed approaches as done earlier. is there a writeup of the ground already broken, so that newcomers can get up to speed more quickly, and help find new ground sooner? i've got discussion archives going back two decades on this, and many folks here have it going back further or encompassing more threads than me. has anybody distilled it into a digestable historical treatment?
