I can understand that excluding some of the related issues makes a
discussion easier. But isn't one of the reasons we have fragmented
solutions and lack a coherent architecture due to the fact that we have
not yet learned to discuss complex issues including all of the related
threads?
In many cases, ignoring the details to get a quick solution out is
reasonable. In the case of changing the basic behavior of IP and of
the addressing architecture, this seems to me to be unwise.
a.
On 15 mar 2005, at 08.58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This thread shows fairly clearly why the BOF co-chairs
excluded mobility: we wanted shim6 to focus on a concrete
solution space, not to re-open old debates that we finally
got past in multi6.