Re: Comments on IPng choice

[[e-mail]]

>>The message doesn't contain any information proving or demonstrating
>>a comparison between the proposals, nor the description of the
>>criteria followed for the selection.

>I stood up at the last IETF and spoke in plenary, and a BOF about
>Craig & Frank's document that has been announced on this list and the
>IETF one, for a long time, which _explicitly lists_ the criteria

>draft-kastenholz-ipng-criteria-02.txt is a current version, but the
>criteria have been public for a long time.

Jon, 
actually we know this document, but what we have not understood is
how the different IPng proposals have been evaluated versus the requirements.
 

>>On the other side, for example, we didn't see any comparison between the 
>>different proposals about the  addressing capability  to offer important 
>>functionalities like routing aggregation and topological flexibility
>>and administrative decentralization.

>read the internet drafts about the schemes for all these things for
>TUBA and SIPP.....

we read also these documents but again we missed the directorate's comments
and comparison between them.
 
>>Could anyone shed light upon the SIPP 16 choice?
 
>i cannot, because i thought SIPP-Classic (8 byte, plus 8 byte
>extensions), was preferable, however, the IPng Area Directors no doubt
>explain will next week in Toronto.

we will wait for the Toronto meeting ....

good work,

Antonia, Cristina