Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3

[YangWoo Ko <newcat@peacenet.or.kr>]

Dear James Seng,

( I still have problem in sending my mail to this mailing list. T.T )

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:30:54AM +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
> So, the question I am asking is why people squeeze L2 & L3 together?
> There must be a technical reason or a user requirements which resultant
> in the business decision right?
> 
> But I think you answered that :-) I am interested to know if that is the
> same for Korea.

As you explicitly mention "korea", I can not but answer. ;-)

There is a working group in Korea to deal with keyword. At this working
group, we have been focused on requirements from user's point of view.
From ordinary user's point of view, they do not care what L2 / L3 is.
One thing which was very clear for us is that there are already big and
doing-well commercial players in directory / search area like Yahoo and
Google. And another point is that in the spectrum from IP address, machine
(or Latin-script-friendly-human) friendly domain name through what people 
get by entering names (or phrases) into directory / search service 
providers, there are missing bands. Especially, due to the fact that we 
will not be able to have fully internationalized domain name ( ML.ML.ML ) 
soon, desire to overcome deficiency has been concentrated on band which 
is very near to domain name band.

I am neither against L2 nor L3. I just want them be flexible (or strict ?)
enough to support or to mitigate these unintended fevers in Korea.

With my best regards

-- 
/*------------------------------------------------
YangWoo Ko : newcat@peacenet.or.kr
PeaceNet / Director
------------------------------------------------*/