what is expected from whom.

Rob Austein <sra@epilogue.com> Tue, 05 January 1993 21:34 UTC

Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09652; 5 Jan 93 16:34 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17620; 5 Jan 93 16:34 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09642; 5 Jan 93 16:34 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09632; 5 Jan 93 16:33 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17604; 5 Jan 93 16:34 EST
Received: from epilogue.com (quern.epilogue.com) by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.65+local-7) id <AA24303>; Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:36:31 -0800
Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Rob Austein <sra@epilogue.com>
X-Orig-Sender: sra@epilogue.com
To: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Cc: Steve Knowles <stev@ftp.com>, ietf@isi.edu
In-Reply-To: Frank Kastenholz's message of Tue, 5 Jan 93 14:59:51 -0500 <9301051959.AA27684@ftp.com>
Subject: what is expected from whom.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 16:33:07 -0500
Message-Id: <9301051633.aa14935@quern.epilogue.com>

Frank,

I agree with the text in draft-partridge-ipv7-criteria-01.txt section
5.1.1, except for the implied tight coupling between the IPv4 packet
format and the current routing architecture.  I don't think there's
any significant disagreement on the scaling requirements.

However, as you and Craig noted in your introduction, your document
presumes that a new IP-layer protocol is desired and does not address
the debate on this point.

My concern is that, by referring to the entire discussion by the tag
"IPv7", we risk losing track of the problem we set out to solve.

I believe the debate has focused on new packet formats because the
light is better, not because the key is there.

--Rob Austein <sra@epilogue.com>