IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] RPL alternatives in ACP?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 07 June 2017 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454E3129AC7 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5mtZlIL5dVBS for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CDFA124BE8 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51535E245; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BB96380F; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:37:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
cc: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" <robmgl@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <f6e60282c5cf436584b29837b3b0ba44@XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com>
References: <192aefd6-1c4e-57e8-bdcb-71fd130248a4@gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2F4251B@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2F48216@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <eab968f0-6bbd-33f7-8b6f-b2e953d78f62@gmail.com> <f6e60282c5cf436584b29837b3b0ba44@XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 16:37:40 -0400
Message-ID: <29765.1496867860@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/X0VwXqn67u2VkeFrmlWfPAVELmM>
Subject: Re: [Anima] RPL alternatives in ACP?
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 20:37:43 -0000

Roberta Maglione (robmgl) <robmgl@cisco.com> wrote:
    >> But in some closed solutions, multi-vendor interoperation is not the
    >> No.1 consideration for customers.

    > If you think that multi-vendor interoperability is not needed what's
    > the point of making a standard? Why discussing it here? You could make
    > your own choice for protocol without asking for WG opinion/consensus.

Exactly, well said.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email