+1. On 2/4/10 12:13 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > Earlier, Patrick Frejborg wrote: > >> So I claim that hIPv4 is providing a new routing architecture - >> it is either not a CES or a CEE - it is something else. >> > I don't find the "CES" or "CEE" terms to be very meaningful, > in that they don't really inform one about the important > properties of any proposal. > > Just as Patrik disagrees with how HIPv4 has been characterised, > I don't really agree with how ILNP has been characterised. > > I don't see the value in trying to continue use of those terms > within the Routing RG context. Probably best if we all just > move on, and keep trying to find meaningful ways to characterise > the various ideas floating within the RG. > > Yours, > > Ran Atkinson > > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > >
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
