AW: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

["Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>]

Jim,

as feedback on the issue was asked for, my 2 cents:

 
| The real question is whether folks think there is a *need* (for 
| consistent/interoperable implementations) to require one (or two)
| BC model(s)?  Or not.

During the Atlanta meeting the point was raised that depending on 
the mode of operation of a link, each BC model may have 
its merits. So it seems sound to have both of them available and 
they may both be applied within a single network.

Consistency and interoperability also strongly depend on a simple 
and well defined specification, default settings and reduction 
of options. If both BC models are specified that way, both 
should be implemented.

Regards, Rudiger