Re: IDPR as a Proposed Standard

[Noel Chiappa <[e-mail]>]

	Yakov:

	There is a difference between 'goals' and 'requirements'. You were
seeking to make all five requirements (I noted your use of shall). 

	I see a very similar situation here to something that happened early
on in the OSPF development. That protocol was originally titled OIGP, but the
name was changed in deference to the sentiments of some people who wanted to
build a new DV IGP, and thought use of the term "Open IGP" meant a choice had
to be made between DV and LS, and that that debate hadn't happened. In
response, the name was changed, and a DV IGP group was set up (although it
never produced anything).
	IDPR without link state, source routing and setup would not be IDPR.
It would be something totally different. Those choices were implicit in the
charter of the WG (although I don't know if they were explicit). If you really
think they are a bad set of choices, you don't have to participate in that WG.
	We can also change the name to "LSSRFSIDPR", explicitly restricting
the scope of this WG to Link State, Source Routed, Flow Setup Inter Domain
Routing Protocols, leaving you free to set up the DVIDPR, DVIDRP, LSSRIDPR,
LSSRIDRP, etc, etc groups as you wish.
	I note that there are other WG's building EGP's with policy
capabilities which do not make this set of fundamental choices. I suggest you
apply your time in those WG's, rather than disrupting this one because you
don't like some of the fundamental choices.

	Noel