Re: [rrg] Proposal for recommendation language

Just to clarify, the LISP work is specifically aimed at experimental 
status.  This is the kind of space where multiple experiments seems 
quite sensible.

Yours,
Joel

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-04-20 12:50, Tony Li wrote:
> 
>>       Renumbering [I-D.carpenter-renum-needs-work]
> 
> I'm flattered to be cited, but I hope this doesn't convey the
> impression that the draft (now in the RFC queue) offers a
> solution. It's more of the nature of a problem statement and
> gap analysis. I think it would be helpful to state that, to
> avoid any false expectations.
> 
> ...
> 
>>    We recommended ILNP because we find it to be a clean solution for the
>>    architecture.  It separates location from identity in a clear,
>>    straightforward way that is consistent with the remainder of the
>>    Internet architecture and makes both first-class citizens.  Unlike
>>    the many map-and-encap proposals, there are no complications due to
>>    tunneling, indirection, or semantics that shift over the lifetime of
>>    a packets delivery.
> 
> Two observations:
> 
> 1. Maybe add some words to point out that it isn't a done deal. ILNP
> hasn't had the kind of across the board review in the IETF that seems
> essential, to look for corner cases and unexpected consequences. There's
> work to be done.
> 
> 2. The IETF has already standardised a different approach (shim6) and is
> in the process of specifying LISP. While this may be the IETF's problem
> to sort out, perhaps you should also point out that we'd end up with
> a menagerie of three species by adding ILNP.
> 
>      Brian
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
> 