<html>
<body>
Keith: thanks for the clarifications. I guess that the exercise points
out that if we are going to put in some basic tutorial information, it
helps to keep it really simple so that people don't read specific design
choices into it. That's why I prefer something like Forrest Warthman's
diagrams.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#0000FF">I'm not
sure exactly how this diagram will be used. For now it was<br>
just an attempt to stick all sorts of acronyms in their relative<br>
positions on the page. It includes lots of other protocols
and<br>
technologies to help other folks understand where they fit and to<br>
give us a map to scribble in potential options for further
study.</font></blockquote><br>
That may be appropriate for a document that is attempting to justify a
large technology development program, but - as standardizers - aren't we
trying to narrow the options here? It seems like our primary current
customers (ESMD and Aurora) are mainly looking for a robust, well-proven,
consensus architecture that will do the job, not a shopping list of new
technologies in which to "invest". So shouldn't the Cislunar
work focus on just adding the necessary and sufficient set of new
capabilities onto the current installed base in an evolutionary way,
rather than starting over?<br><br>
///adrian<br>
</body>
<br>
</html>