🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Marty -- 

>Stef,

>> Although Marshall Rose (Hi Marshall) seems to be saying that he does not
>> want to discuss this topic, I would like to suggest that broadened
>> discussion of ISO Transition issues is a good idea.  

>There are many of us who are only interested in talking about coexistence
>since we are now so old (like being in our 30's) that we won't live
>long enough to see a transition.

>:-) Marty 

I agree entirely that the entire strategy is captured in the concept of
co-existence, with transition left to take care of itself over time.

Indeed, co-existence (with interworking among communities) is the
obvious first goal, which of course cannot be resolved by answering the
question of "which is better" in some techno-religious sense.  Attempts
to answer this question on technical merit grounds can only intensify
community differences and inhibit interworking among communities.  What
we need to find are strategies that blur the boundaries rather than
sharpen them.  

But, just because you and I and Marshall (and others) have figured all
this out and have the strategic issues resolved out, does not mean that
we should keep the rest of the world from wrestling with the issues in
their own way.  They may even come to agree with us in the end.  

As I read the writings from Korea so far, I see that they are embracing
all the tools we advocate (Application Gateways, Transport Bridges, and
Network Tunnels) for co-existence, while also lamenting that it would be
easier for OSI to overcome the TCP/IP lead if TCP/IP had never happened.

This whole issue is going to be resolved in the marketplace and not in
any network discussion of this sort.  What I would hope is that after
some pounding away by the die-hards and fanatics, that the wise among us
will find it easier to make their presence felt in the market place.  

In other words, find it easier to make the right purchase decisions.  

Cheers...\Stef