Templin, Fred L wrote: > Joe, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:43 AM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Thierry Ernst; Internet Area >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why the IETF is still working on >> providing newfeaturesto IPv4 ? >> >> >> >> Templin, Fred L wrote: >>>>> I think that depends on what you mean by "IPv6 deployment". >>>>> IMHO, IPv6 deployment as endpoint identifiers is a MUST but >>>>> disruption of the IPv4 Internet is a SHOULD NOT. >>>> Agreed that IPv4 must not be disrupted. >>> OK. >>> >>>> What I meant to say is really all the work items for providing new >>>> features to IPv4. Example in the IPv4 mobility area. >>> Clearly, I disagree. IMHO, IPv6 as endpoint identifiers >>> and IPv4 in-the-network is the right fit for growing >>> the Internet; see for example the RRG work. >> See it indeed. >> >> See the open questions list. See what open questions aren't there. >> >> See which open questions are classic distributed-systems >> show-stoppers. >> See which missing open questions are too. >> >> Then decide whether "right fit" is a conclusion. > > You are good at twisting words, but see the "IMHO" and see > the "for example" portions of my message before diverting > the discussion as a platform for tangential commentary.
Fred, It was you who diverted the discussion with your own tangential commentary; mine simply adds an additional, albeit different, viewpoint. I agree that we don't need to discuss it here; if that's the case, it need not have been brought up in this context or forum. I encourage others to check out the work and participate in further commentary on the rrg mailing list, not here, FWIW. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
