Subject: [rrg] Terminology

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:13:09 -0500

Earlier, Patrick Frejborg wrote:
> So I claim that hIPv4 is providing a new routing architecture -
> it is either not a CES or a CEE - it is something else.

I don't find the "CES" or "CEE" terms to be very meaningful,
in that they don't really inform one about the important
properties of any proposal.

Just as Patrik disagrees with how HIPv4 has been characterised,
I don't really agree with how ILNP has been characterised.

I don't see the value in trying to continue use of those terms
within the Routing RG context.  Probably best if we all just
move on, and keep trying to find meaningful ways to characterise
the various ideas floating within the RG.

Yours,

Ran Atkinson

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:25:55 +0100

+1.

On 2/4/10 12:13 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>
>