Talk:Internetworking

I'm sorry it's moving in this direction

"Internetworking" is more of a lower layers term than "Internet", and I'm afraid that moving the article here does not feel like a willingness to collaborate.

There are a number of redlinks in this article that could be going to existing articles on quite the same subject, but they are not using the correct article names. Preferably change the link, or at least pipe.

The bulk of the architecture article is about layering, which is not a strong Internet context. Don't take my word alone for this: An updated IETF architectural document, RFC3439, "Some Internet Architectural Guidelines and Philosophy" by Randy Bush and Dave Meyer (2002), has a section entitled: "Layering Considered Harmful": Emphasizing layering as the key driver of architecture is not a feature of the TCP/IP model, but rather of OSI. Much confusion comes from attempts to force OSI-like layering onto an architecture that minimizes their use. For higher-layer terminology, see RFC3466, "A Model for Content Internetworking (CDI)".

Internet architecture is much more onion-like than layer-cake, with principles such as end-to-end, local vs. remote, robustness, etc. Locality of networks issues also enter, be they link-local or scoped. I'm afraid I cannot, as an Editor, support something called a description of Internet architecture that is mostly about layering. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You perhaps have misinterpreted my motivation. I moved the subgroup to the new name because two issues were being conflated: 1) what material belongs in the article called "Internet", and 2) the formation of the "Internet" (now "Internetworking") subgroup. Keeping these two issues separate clarifies the discussion. I will study your comments and respond to them in the next few days. Dan Nessett 06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)