Re: breaking the IP model (or not)

[Scott Brim <ncc1701v at yahoo.com>]

At 04:12 PM 4/10/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> it's completely natural that people will try such approaches -
> they are trying to address real problems and they want quick
> solutions to those problems.  but if the quick fix solutions
> get entrenched then they cause their own set of problems which
> are worse then the original problems.  this is not progress.
>
> IMHO we need to see these things for what they are:
>
> - quick fixes with limited applicability and future
> - indicators that there is an important problem that needs to be
>   solved in a technically sound fashion

Agreed completely ... but this still doesn't lead to your 
conclusion.  Suppose we had suppressed every kludge that's come up since 
we started working on a new Internet design as a group?  Let me see, ROAD 
gave their report, where they recommended CLNP, in Santa Fe, right?  That 
was (let me look at the back of my shirt a second ...) in 1991.  OK, OK, 
I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is 
architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these days it 
takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.  Peter Deutsch is 
right: let the work go forward and *in addition* be sure you document 
very well what its limitations are.  Stick that documentation in the same 
RFCs whenever possible.

...Scott


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com