RE: Loops (RE: CPIM changes)

> If
> you simply
> want me to shut up, please say so directly rather than trying to promote a
> view that the issues I am raising involve unsound architecture. I
> have been
> very careful to point out the considerable basis for each suggestion I am
> making.

I'm sorry, my mention of "sound architecture" wasn't intended to suggest
that you were an advocate of unsound architecture.

But I am trying to contrast a "sound architecture" with an "easy to adopt
architecture". It would seem like a good thing to ensure that it is
*possible* to gateway between vendors X and Y. It would seem like a bad
thing to (say) adopt current bit patterns used by X or Y simply to improve
ease of gatewaying, if those were not otherwise good design choices.

I suspect that we largely agree and are both just reacting over-vigorously
to certain phrases in each other's messages.

--Mark




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]