Re: Layer 3.5 is actually layer 4

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Brian;

> You have made your point repeatedly. Some people disagree with you,
> and at this point, more repeating will not change that. So could
> we please close this discussion?

I repeat my point repeatedly and others are agreeing with
me more and more that the discussion has almost converged.

It should be noted that, during the discussion, no one have
give any support for your sweeping statement that:

	The systems level argument for a layer 3.5 solution is that
	it can cover all cases, including ones we have not
	invented yet.

So, it is simply that you withdraw your fallacy of layer 3.5 and
the discussion is closed.

To save bandwidth, you can do so silently by not responding this
mail.

> Of course, the architectural analysis to be developed in and
> following Seoul will have to take this discussion into account.

The architectural analysis is already developed by me before
the WG was formed and we have seen any input not denied yet
to change it.

							Masataka Ohta