Re: [idn] Re: [JET-member 446] Re: Fw: Re: new members invitation

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

I agree with you - "scale" is an engineering consideration.
But "cost" (economy), OTOH, is not.

Anyway, this is an overflow discussion from JET. If we wish to take
about "scale" problem, lets wait for the draft which JET is preparing
first then others can participate the discussion in a more constructive
manner.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
Cc: <jet-member@nic.ad.jp>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: [JET-member 446] Re: Fw: Re: new members
invitation


> James,
>
> Substitute "cost" (or "economy") for "scale".
>
> As Deng pointed out some _weeks_ ago, the buy-to-exhaustion "solution"
to
> the SC/TC issue DOESN'T SCALE. The same holds for any contention
mechanism,
> aka a "DRP". Even when both are "free".
>
> Remember scaling?
>
> Cheers,
> Eric