[Parodper]

> Doing this brings you close to OSI, which famously failed by being overcomplicated.

We're slowly reinventing OSI, one step at a time: OSI had multiple sessions per transport connection (QUIC), 20 byte addresses (IPv6) and a directory system with public-key infrastructure (DANE, vCard, SSHFP, etc).

It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed.

[throw0101d]

> It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed.

See "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol", §8.3 TUBA Reviews:

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752

The document explains why SIPP was chosen (with the tweak of 128-bit addresses instead of 64).

[Parodper]

Very interesting, thanks. I like they even admit their own bias, that the main reason was that they didn't want another's protocol; except for the word alignment, all the other issues are solvable.