On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> |Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or >> |may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide >> |a path forward for IPv6. >> >>> The supposed consensus was false. If there was a consensus from that >>> debate, it was that a solution process that failed to also resolve the >>> problem for IPv6 would not be acceptable. Nor surprisingly, this >>> latter statement reflects our behavior since. > > > If there's a semantic difference between this and the quote above, it's lost > on me.
Tony, The first calls for solving the problem for IPv6 and then considering whether it can be backported to IPv4. The second calls for solving the problem for IPv4 while avoiding any (unlikely) pitfalls that would prevent an identical solution from working for IPv6. The difference is not all that subtle. > The RRG was chartered specifically to address the architectural issues. Not > the implementation issues. That was, is and will continue to be a cop-out. An architecture is dictated first and foremost by its achievability from the current state of affairs. Does no good to design an interstellar starship if you can't build an engine that moves it. First figure out how to build an engine. Then use the knowledge you gained to design a better starship. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
