Re: [RRG] Moving forward...

["William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
> |Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6.  It may or
> |may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide
> |a path forward for IPv6.
>
>
> It's my judgement that we have rough consensus on this.  There is dissent,
> notably from Robin and Bill, but overall, it seems that we have rough
> consensus.

Tony,

I counted:

9 for
3 accept with the reservation that the IPv4 and IPv6 solutions should
be identical
4 offering other reservations
3 against

That's a pretty weak consensus. Are you sure you want to roll forward
without seeking a statement that more than a minority can agree to
without reservations?


Personally, I've reached the view that there are three worthy avenues
of investigation, and we should be pursuing all three of them in
parallel:

1. The IPv6 variant (which may be but probably isn't compatible with IPv4)
2. The IPv4 variant (which is compatible with but likely suboptimal for IPv6)
3. The clean-slate variant which we could design if we weren't
constrained by IPv4 or IPv6.

Each is interesting in its own right, mild competition between the
three efforts will tend to improve all of them and IMO each is likely
to yield knowledge that proves useful to the other two but wouldn't
otherwise be discovered.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg