[governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format

[Jeanette Hofmann]

>>  > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility,
>>  > > or non-seamless-compatibility.
> 
> Probably, you will have to read the history of IETFs IPng (later
> renamed IPv6) WG, as I wasn't on that list when those choices were
> made.

I went through those archives about 10 years ago and found them very 
interesting.
> 

>>  Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or impossible?

There were several competing proposals.
I once wrote a paper about this discussion. If you are interested:

http://duplox.wzb.eu/final/jeanette.htm


jeanette
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance