RE: where the indirection layer belongs

["Yuri Ismailov (KI/EAB)" <yuri.ismailov at ericsson.com>]

I completely agree with that and support the whole thing.
The discussion shows that there are quite many opinions and seems that everybody has in mind some problem, which can be solved by new layer and new name space.
The forum is needed in order to put those ideas together and find out whether all (or at least some) of them have the same root.

/Yuri


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Honore [mailto:robert at digi-data.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 8:40 PM
To: Yuri Ismailov (KI/EAB)
Cc: 'Tony Hain'; 'Keith Moore'; ietf at ietf.org; vinton.g.cerf at mci.com
Subject: Re: where the indirection layer belongs


Dear Folks,

Regarding this discussion about an indirection layer, I am thinking we 
really should propose the formation of some forum for discussion of 
these issues.  It does not seem to fit cleanly into the IPv6 working 
group, and out here in no-man's-land, I don't think it is getting the 
kind of attention it needs.

I had already made my position clear.  We need something.  Call it an 
indirection layer or a stabilisation layer or whatever you want, but we 
need a forum where we can specify the problem we are trying to solve and 
to consider the possible solutions for it.  Does anybody agree?

Yours sincerely,
Robert Honore.