> The IETF does continue to have an emphasis on connectionless, > packet-oriented delivery. That's our fundamental architecture, without > question. In the meantime there are customers who want to transition to > c, p-o d but need mechanisms for doing so.
Personally I'd find this proposal more compelling if it were being presented as being oriented towards transitional mechanisms. We're seeing circuit-y proposals show up in other working groups and I'm concerned that these reflect a shift in basic assumptions about the characteristics of the underlying network, at least among a non-trivial number of participants. As a process kind of thing, I'm also concerned about the growth of the "temporary" sub-IP area, so I think there are issues here with both the work itself and in how the IETF goes about taking on and structuring its work. Melinda
