On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:16AM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote: > Dino, > > > There are only 2 technical solutions, NATs or PTRs. They can solve the > > problem. If you choose something else that you think makes business > > sense it could not even come close to solving the problem. > > > > Let's first worry about solving the technical problem. Or else we > > don't have to worry about any business models. > > I'm sorry but I don't think this is acceptable. Deployability and > incentives have been a key issue from day one in this work. We really > need to have a solution that the relevant players want to deploy. That > is as important as the technical solution. We cannot fail either in the > technical solution or the business incentives of the design. I don't > think we should postpone discussion of the incentives; its an integral > and necessary part of the solution. Just like mapping and encapsulation > are both needed in the technical solution; encapsulation without the > mapping function isn't going to be very useful.
Jari,
I'm pretty sure that we can stipulate that that
deployability is of critical importance (at least you can
get that from me).
However, as I said (and if its not actually out of
scope), maybe we should get the biz people in this
disussion if you want to talk about that angle. Stated
otherwise, do we have the right group of people engaged
to take on the business end of this? What I see is a lot
of speculation, but not much more.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
