RE: [MBONED] addrarch: MADCAP to historic?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kessens [mailto:david.kessens@nokia.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 3:22 PM
> To: John Meylor (jmeylor)
> Cc: mboned@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] addrarch: MADCAP to historic?
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:02:15AM -0800, John Meylor (jmeylor) wrote:
> > > So, moving something from standards track to anything else
> > > really needs to have a reason along the lines of "current
> > > technology is really not the recommended way to go anymore".
> > >
> > > I don't hear that in this case.
> >
> > I agree.  If we believe there is better way to handle this function
> > (which there may or may not be), WG should address it.
> >
> > Otherwise, this function works, and has commercial implementations
> > in the field, this latter point certainly raises the bar for
> > us to degrade status without alternative..
> 
> There is a little bit more to this:
> 
> Are these existing implementations actually being used (anybody on
> this list?) ?

Yes.

-Dave

> If not so, are we not sticking our head in the sand if we keep
> recommending a particular solution that apparently doesn't address a
> problem in the marketplace?
> 
> David Kessens
> ---
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned