Frank - As I assured in my earlier email, those issues that have been raised are valid and will certainly have to be addressed. This includes your comment regarding the support for pre-configured addresses, as well as the question of whether binding establishment should be based on control or data packets, which I summarized in the email you are referring to. But the issues raised do not render the FCFS principle inappropriate for working group adoption. On the contrary, based on the feedback from the working group and the discussions I had with working group participants, I am very positive that there is in fact strong support for the FCFS principle. Hence the adoption of draft-bagnulo-savi-fcfs/send. - Christian On Jan 7, 2009, Frank Xia wrote:
Hi Christian It seems to be a little bit rush :-). I don't think people have enough time to read your previous email. For my understanding, it is hard to hard to say "STRONG" support for the FCFS principle. At least, I can not find strong support through this long discussions in the mailing list. IMHO, the decision should be based rough consensus by WG. IETF is based on mailing list. BR Frank
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.