Hey Dimitri, > Uncertainties are intrinsically part of the experimental work: this > reference states "robust to known and designed-for uncertainties".
Right, this is RYF (Robust Yet Fragile) behavior...see
the second Eugene NANOG t-shirt (the black one) :-)
> Paraphrasing that statement it seems the LISP charter does not leave
> room for addressing uncertainties (e.g. mapping system consider only ALT
> so only ALT could be experimented) - a BoF session should clarify why
> this is the case -
Not sure I follow. Of course we want to wind up with a
solid ALT spec, but the charter states that "The working
group will encourage and support interoperable LISP
implementations as well as defining requirements for
alternate mapping systems." IMO this admits the
specification for other mapping systems. Good ideas
always welcome.
In any event, Brian really summed it up quite nicely:
...
But I don't see the point in a second BOF; the idea
that a BOF could resolve in a couple of hours the
issues that the RRG has been discussing since early
2007 seems unlikely.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
