Subject: Re: A follow up question

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 00:22:28 -0400

> In the presence of an adequate abstraction model, an application 
> should not care whether a given host has one address or a dozen, 
> nor about whether such addresses were equivalent or different, 
> nor about whether they represent physically separate interfaces. 

there are lots of assumptions behind this about what an "address" is,
how it gets used, when and where the address-to-host binding takes place
and whether it can change, etc.  that are sufficiently different than
the current IP world that I can't tell what you are assuming.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 06:56:29 +0300

Hi Tim,

> > How about starting with the IPng archives?!  They're actually more 
> > persistant than, say, an internet draft, anyway.
> 
> No need to bother, just read any sample of 100 ipng emails in one day and
> the same arguments come up again and again.  And again.

Just to second this - and its a process guestion (wait, there is another
working group focused on that ...) - I thought that, at the end of the 
day, we are supposed to be making standards, not mailing list
archives ....

John