From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
i think the two paragraphs you would like to see improved are
[snip]
i am not against further explanation, send text. but short text. :)
[WEG] just the first paragraph really, and as I'll note below - I'd love to
send text, but I don't understand one of
hi wes,
why does proximity matter? Is this just an extension of the trust
domain and limited dependence on routing protocols? If so, I'd
dispense with recommending close because it confuses the issue and
just keep the discussion about secondary dependencies and trust
domains.
are you really
Following this line of reasoning (which is not unreasonable); if the
router requires the cache to arrive at correctness, maybe the cache
should be _inside_ the router.
yep. but no chance of it fitting in existing routers, and routers today
don't have the crypto oomph to validate (frequently).
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:26 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
i think the two paragraphs you would like to see improved are
[snip]
i am not against further explanation, send text. but short text. :)
[WEG] just the first paragraph
