Subject: RE: Draft of updated WG charter

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:49:20 -0500 (EST)

> From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>

    > I find myself becoming rapidly depressed by this conversation. I was
    > under the impression that we had a requirements document already on the
    > table. I thought that we were a good bit past this. 

Tony, no need to get bummed - what's going on is the same thing that went on
with the introduction of aggregation and connectivity- (a.k.a. provider-)
dependent addresses - which is that people poorly understand the roots of the
issue in fundamental routing mechanics, and don't yet follow the unavoidable
logical path which leads from those to the engineering details they don't
like.

My sense is that most people who've been here for a while do understand both
the roots, and the logical path which they force us down, and as in the
latter stages over the debate on portable addresses, it's only a few
newcomers (and the terminally clueless :-) who are still trying to go back to
the past.

	Noel

---

From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:23:50 +0000

> newcomers (and the terminally clueless :-) who are still trying to go back to

We (the terminally clueless) eagerly await deployable solutions that
can be transparently rolled out to my desktops.  The not-terminally
clueless perhaps need to come out with more compelling arguments and
less bombast.

/vijay