Subject: RE: threats ID

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:11:52 +0200

Hi Tim,

I agree & I also wonder if this debate is really achieving anything.

thanks,
John
 
> > There is no such thing as layer 3.5.
> > 
> > Network layer solutions are at layer 3, transport layer 
> solutions are
> > at layer 4. PERIOD.
> > 
> 
> As far as I am aware, the IETF has never reached a consensus on how
> the layers are to be numbered or what layers should exist.  Clearly
> the number of layers varies depending on exactly what you are doing.
> Note that IPSEC adds a layer, increasing the number of layers below
> TCP by one.  (I would say that IPSEC looks like it is quite a bit more
> than half a layer, and it certainly appears to be thicker than many
> other things which are allowed to occupy a full unit of layering in
> our minds.)
> 
> I know that many people are aware of the layer numbering convention
> that was developed for the OSI suite of compter networking protocols,
> but I know of no reason to take that particular numbering of layers
> seriously. I have trouble keeping straight which layer is which
> number, so I would appreciate it if layers would be refered to by some
> meaningful name and not just a bare number.
> 
> What layer number you are at depends on where you start counting and
> how many things you have stuck between you and there.
> 
> 			-Tim Shepard
> 			 [email-masked]
> 
>

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:44:55 +0900

> I agree & I also wonder if this debate is really achieving anything.

As both of you are unaware of the IPSEC architectural RFC, debates
related to IPSEC architecture with you is assured not to achieve
anything.

So?

							Masataka Ohta