Re: [DNA] Landmark vs Link-ID prefix solution

[James Kempf <Kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Jim

> What I empatically do not agree with is James K's statement that we
> should stop work on Link-ID because it may use up a bit more time and
> white paper space than Landmark.  That is not an engineering argument or
> technical rationale, but false bravado at this point I will assume for
> time-to-market reasons.  I agree with need to ship something, but this
> is serious stuff, and unless Greg tells me we don't have more time I
> assume we can get this right?
>

I think I might not have been clear. What I intended to say was that I think
backward compatibility is more important than whether one or another
protocol has a few extra bytes. It sounds like that is what you are
concerned with too.
 Or are you saying that you think size/time is more important?

            jak