On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Terry Manderson <[email protected] > wrote:
> For each > highly plausible candidate routing protocol, the design team will > estimate the work needed and the associated timeline to get an > acceptable, full, standardized solution using each protocol. I find it concerning to say that a decision will be made only on the "work needed" to get to an acceptable solution, without considering the likelihood of said work happening and who is expected, able, and especially, willing to do it. Example: For IS-IS, the existence of a small-footprint, source-destination-routing capable implementation is a blocker for an "acceptable, full" solution. That requires that either a) someone with knowledge of an existing implementation extend said existing implementation to meet these requirements, or b) that someone write a new implementation to meet these requirements. On the other hand, for babel, much of the work is in addressing the fact that the specification is perceived to be underspecified, and verifying that the existing implementations conform to the specification and interoperate, and taking the specifications through the standards process. The types of work involved are radically different, and the people able to do each may or may not be willing to do it. So if one of the two (say, IS-IS) is perceived to be lower work, but nobody is willing to actually *do* that work, then the design team could come to a perfectly logical conclusion, consistent with its charter, that ends in failure to reach the full solution. Or, more succintly: what happened to the "running code" part of the IETF motto?
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
