Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3

[James Seng/Personal <[e-mail]>]

Yangwoo Ko wrote:
> ( I still have problem in sending my mail to this mailing list. T.T )

I have contacts with realtime online Korean community, more than I care
to admit, to know what T.T means. ^_^

> There is a working group in Korea to deal with keyword. At this
working
> group, we have been focused on requirements from user's point of view.

I believe there is also a korean user requirements document. Is it
possible to share that document with this group? It would certainly help
to give some insight to why this is so.

In another mail Yangwoo Ko wrote:
> You got exactly one half of my point. I do not understand why you
> think "direct navigation" is only a business requirement.

"direct navigation" may be one of the user requirements of L2.

But when you say "keyword service business, e.g. ... think that direct
navigation ... is also crucial point", it become a business requirement.
That does not appeal to me.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that IETF generally do not have
problem that companies makes money from its standards or protocols. It
become a ..erm.."sole point" when only one or a handful benefit
therefore defending the purpose of an open standard in the first place.
This is what we labour to avoid.

-James Seng