[standards-jig] DTCP Relay (proxy)
justin-jdev at affinix.com
Fri Dec 13 01:19:34 UTC 2002
On Thursday 12 December 2002 03:01 pm, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> Please accept this criticism from somebody who has been a network
> administrator for several service providers before moving on to software
> development. What you are suggesting will not work in the real world,
> and the "bad rap" that PASS received was because of its failure to
> provide a real world solution for the problem of NAT'd addresses and
> tight firewalls. Let me explain further below.
Criticism accepted. This makes me wonder though, are the problems here with
PASS itself, or with the fact that DTCP and proxy are separate? It seems to
me that this separation is a good thing, and if PASS is not acceptable then
we should need a PASS2 to address the problems.
> The point is, saying that you don't want to deal with these things in
> DTCP because its adds complexity is not sufficient. This issues need to
> be addressed. The unfortunate thing is that expanding DTCP to address
> all of these problems will most likely ultimately end up being very
> similar to JOBS, and there will be a lot of lost time because some
> parties have decided to be stubborn and not work together.
Ok, do you have a suggestion?
Perhaps we can find a way to improve DTCP-Relay (see the thread-parent), but
avoid turning it into JOBS.
More information about the Standards