[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Agenda for Vienna



	Tony,




I'd like to take this opportunity to again ask that we put aside
our petty and trivial differences, the implementation foibles
and our particular pet proposals (mine included).  Instead
we should take this time to sit down and have a collaborative
architectural discussion.



Agreed.




It is the perogative and responsibility of the chairs to
ensure that we make forward progress and I call on them to
step up, lead the discussion, and ensure that we stay at
a civilized and architectural level.

Once we have an architecture for a solution, THEN we can
start worrying about the bits.

This implies that we should not be looking at particular
proposals.  We should not even be looking at 'categories'
of proposals.  Instead, we should be talking about possible
architectures.  That's one layer farther up.





The idea with doing the agenda the way we have proposed is to try and 
have the best of both worlds. The idea is that the second session is 
just this. Sit down and try and work out the architectural principles. 
The first session is not necessarily  intended to influence this 
discussion (again, the first session is not the qualifying session for 
the second). See the first session as a "marketing" (for the lack of 
better word) event for multi6.



It's not ideal, but we are trying to a) Give people the opportunity to 
express their thoughts on the architecture (although with detailed 
examples) and b) Have a discussion on the future architecture.



Best regards,



- kurtis -