Maoke, I like your analog of horse, donkey, and donkorse! and fully agree with you.
People know what kind of situation horse and donkey can help to solve the problem. People do not want unknown donkorse because it creates more problem rather than solving specific problem. Kevin Yin > >> > > well, this is what i mean the uncertainty of 4rd-U in the architecture to > the common understanding. as a analogy, one of Mr. E and Mr. T said, "i > give you a horse", while the other said "i give you a donkey". then people > well understand when they need acwhen they need a donkey. now Mr. U said > "wow, i give you a fantastic donkorse!". there would be 2 possible results, > not certain right now: > A. donkorse is just another sort of donkey, somehow good but somehow > flawed. > B. donkorse is just donkorse, and people, taking a long time to understand > it, and finally find it either a flawed or a quite good hybrid, like mule, > useful in some cases. > > no matter if the future result is A or B, now Mr. O understand what he > needs for his business is either a horse and a donkey, with their > well-known characteristics. Mr. MAP provides a wheeled car as the common > instrument, while Mr. O needs a standard suite for the wheeled-car, the > horse-driving and donkey-driving methods and the way of feeding the horse > and donkey. this is the task of our wg, right now. > > Mr. U said you must have another type of wheel and drive it with my > donkorse --- and when Mr. O asked him, what your donkorse is, he answered: > you will know it is donkorse, having both the advantages of the horse and > the advantages of the donkey. however, Mr. O doubts donkorse hasn't also > the disadvantages of horse and the disadvantages of donkey and some flaws > not yet documented. why not? > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
