Hi Fred, Working group co-chair safari jacket on.
On 22/09/11 7:22 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> wrote: > > And also in Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6. That is > quite a bit of deliberation about MTU, and I think > goes to show the degree of uncertainty in the main > document's approach even before an experiment is > conducted. Surely that is why the LISP documents are moving forward as experimental. I don't think anyone is deluded to think that all of the answers are provided, and if they are - send them my way in Taipei for a chat. However in my read of the documents every time I thought "What about ...?" there existed some words to identify it as an issue for investigation or consideration during experimental deployment. Uncertainty is, I think, justifiable here.. To take an absolute stance that any implementation is free from hazards is known well in the IETF as folly (aside: yet many repeat the lesson). > > So what makes more sense? To go forward with a > "slacker's" approach that is riddled with doubts ?? really? I appreciate that you have a strong opinion, although please omit subjective nouns from your posts. I fail to see how that adds to the technical discussion. > which might not even be satisfied through extensive > experimentation, or to adopt a lightweight mechanism > from IRON/SEAL that stands a good chance of erasing > all doubts? > Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
