On 2021-03-03, at 03:42, Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory) <[email protected]> wrote: > > backwards compatible
I would suggest not to center the discussion on terms that are so overloaded that they are essentially meaningless. Some believe “backwards compatible” means “does not break existing applications”. That is a low bar (but not trivial either). It does not imply any form of deployability in the sense of actually making the scheme work. Some believe “backwards compatible” means “seamlessly integrates existing infrastructure” (maybe with the exception that certain benefits do not accrue until that is upgraded). That has essentially been the basis for all major innovation that has happened in the Internet, with the exception of IPv6 (and you know how long that took and still is taking in some parts of the world). Terms like “backwards compatible” are, however, useful for derailing the discussion if that is one’s intention, because quickly the discussion will be about the terms and no longer about the subject. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
