Subject: Please Read the Problem Statement! (was: RE: [seamoby] L2/L3 Paging)

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:56:52 -0800 (PST)

Folks,

I've seen a lot of arguments about L2 v.s. L3 paging, but I've the impression 
that some people making the arguments haven't read the problem statement.
The problem statement clearly outlines the problems an IP paging protocol 
could solve. Most of these problems are solvable without IP paging (with
perhaps the exception of unifying access to paging across disparate L2) but in
a very convoluted manner. IP paging would simplify them. Nothing in
the problem statement either precludes or requires L2 paging, but it
does explain why L2 paging may not be enough. Figuring out how to
get the requirements to reflect the role of L2 paging is necessary,
excluding L2 paging or rejecting L3 paging in favor of L2 only is not.

We are not going to be able to come up with a coherent set of requirements
if we are not all on the same page (so to speak :-) about the problems
we are trying to solve.  

		jak

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:14:46 -0800 (PST)

> if we are not all on the same page (so to speak :-) about the problems

So perhaps a more constructive method would be for people to comment on the
draft, and state their objection with specific text.

PatC