From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 00:17:29 GMT-3
>Hi, Xu
>
>I myself agreed, these input from Howard are very helpful(for me, too).
>For your information, I'm never in a position against Howard's post.
>I am one of his admirers. I always appreciate his insightful posts
>with great pleasure.
>
>But I was just wondering how far we have to go into detail of
>networking protocols.
>I'm constantly in a big fight between curiosity for the further
>research and lack of time given to me.
>So for me it's always difficult to decide when to stop digging further.
>I just wanted to get some advice about this. And I think his reply
>was more than enough for this.
>
>Thanks Howard and all again for sharing your great thoughts with me.
>
>Jaeheon
You might be surprised that I often face some of the same problem. My
last couple of books are thorough about network design, but I've been
quite careful to focus on what protocols do and when to use them,
rather than how they work. I am rather proud there isn't one packet
layout illustration in my latest, coming out in April.
At the same time, there are times where I must dig into the bit-level
of the protocol, and at other times go beyond how current protocols
operate and think about how future protocols should work. For
example, my IETF BGP benchmarking work very much gets into packet
structure and flow. My work in the Internet Research Task Force of
the IETF, however, deals with "future domain routing" requirements.
Its main focus is what should come after BGP, but we are really
finding that today's model of intradomain/interior versus
interdomain/exterior probably won't be useful in the future.
So don't feel alone. When I'm managing software development for
scenarios and their execution environment, I'm often the person that
has to say "OK...cut off everything but bug fixes and then ship it.
Those new features will have to go into the next version...or maybe
the one after that."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:24 GMT-3