My mistake, too. LIS rather might be stated as an option or at most a prevailing option, but it should fairly be also stated that there are other views not supporting the LIS argument.
Also, I'm a bit skeptic whether LIS can be any of a design goal. At most, it can be a method to achieve the goal. There might be other methods to achieve the same goal. Many routes to climbing up to the summit. On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>wrote: > Hi Tony, > > > Of course not. The point is to capture our goals and > > articulate them as best we can. > > OK. Just the same, it looks like I am going to have to > go back now and actually *read* this document instead > of just go with the flow - my mistake! > > It should also be noted that IRON is being considered > in other venues right now including softwires, intarea > and v6ops. It is of interest in those communities because > it supports IPv6/IPv4 transition *and* coexistence. The > "transition" part means "get there quickly" and the > "coexistence" part means do it once and be done for good. > > IRON is a one-step solution in which we do it right the > first time - not a two-step solution in which we slap up > something temporary now then come back and do something > (presumably) better later on. (Especially if the "later > on" approach has shortcomings that the once-and-done > approach does not.) > > Thanks - Fred > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > -- DY
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
