RE: transition architecture discussion

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

>> Do not disagree with the below it is good perspective.  But I think
>the
>> word "transition" is more prudent than "migration" in our
>deliberations?
>
>The first order work is neither transition nor migration, but 
>deployment. The discussions in the last months have 
>consistently outlined a consensus towards "dual stack 
>deployment", in order to enable new applications, rather than 
>"translation for transition". 

I don't disagree with you and am in tune with the list.  I have no clue
why my mail elicit this commentary from you?  My point is that in the
world of deployment it will be a transition not a migration.  So I don't
get your comments purpose?

/jim