Hi Joe, > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 2:02 PM > To: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: regarding subnet redirects > > Hi, Fred, > > > On 12/6/2016 1:52 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:37 PM > >> To: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: regarding subnet redirects > >> > >> Hi, Fred, > >> > >> I'm encouraging you to pull this out of AERO and submit it as a separate > >> doc. I don't think it will gain acceptance as part of the larger spec; > >> most people won't see it as independently useful or won't find it at > >> all, IMO. > > Understand what you are saying, and I see the point. Can this be done > > in such a way as to not block the AERO spec from going forward, however? > Why not? > > Sure, they might be coupled in the pubs queue, but AFAICT the separate > items are more likely to go more quickly and can go first anyway. > > This applies to all the parts of Aero - IMO, it's better to demonstrate > them as more generally useful. That goes for the frag/reassembly tunnel > shim layer, this redirect, mobilty, etc. > > That doesn't mean you can't still try to move the integrated system > forward, but then the question is whether that is just a system that > uses the individual pieces or really has some other, overarching > components. (IMO, that's the difficulty with the doc where this > discussion started - AFAICT, that relies on components but doesn't > explain the overarching part).
All valuable suggestions, thank you. Let me think more about it. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
