Earlier, Joel M Halpern wrote:
Having gone back to figure out what "It" in the below quoted text
is, I disagree.
If "it" is a solution to the problems of routing scalability,
reliability, robustness, etc that the rrg was chartered to work on,
then I do not believe we ever agreed that compatibility with all
existing hosts was a requirement.
Deployability in such a way that existing hosts and existing routers
can interwork with any solution, deployability such that there is
value in incremental deployment, and migratability so that
incremental deployment is possible are all things I would buy into.
But I do not buy that we can not adopt solutions where the primary
value requires changes in hosts, or in many routers over the long
term.
And I do not agree that getting clear terminology is irrelevant to
getting to such a goal. I have frequently found it very confusing,
and a hinderance to progress, to realize that the person I was
talking with meant something different by the terms he was using
than I meant by them. Yes, it happens. But that does not make it
helpful. Getting a set of terms we can agree upon, and using them,
can be very helpful.
+1
Ran
[email protected]
PS: This thread needs a new Subject line, but I'm not sure
what it ought to be...
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
