Re: [MBONED] addrarch: MADCAP to historic?

David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com> writes:

> There is a little bit more to this:

> Are these existing implementations actually being used (anybody on
> this list?) ?

This question (by itself) does not seem particularly relevant to
me. (I'm serious.) If there were an alternative technology that people
preferred, or if there were known shortcomings with this technology,
that would be useful to discuss. But if no one is using it, that could
simply mean that (gasp) multicast has not taken off generally, and
this is just one more example of collatoral damage. It does not
immediately follow that this technology is flawed and needs to be
taken off Standards Track.

> 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?

If no one is using it, and no one seems to be confused by it being on
the Standards Track, what harm is there in leaving well enough alone?

We have plenty of more important things to do IMO, then reclassify
documents when the status quo is not causing any problems.

What problem needs fixing here? Aren't there more pressing things to
do with our precious cycles?

Thomas

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