Hi John,
On 29/09/11 5:21 AM, "John Scudder" <[email protected]> wrote: > Terry, > > It seems inappropriate to me that LISP be the sole WG that works on all things > related to LISP. I thought my words captured an openness stance, perhaps not. There is simply no way for LISP WG to mandate that all things LISP be here. And such a thing would not be healthy long term, and starts down the "not invented here" path. What I would like to see captured is that the LISP WG is there for people who wish to do work on LISP in the LISP WG in various applications. If a standards developer so chooses to push a work item that uses LISP in another WG, then that is their choice, and the choice of the target WG. Similarly, what I don't want to say is that "I'm sorry - LISP encapsulation of Carrier Pigeon doesn't belong here, see the Carrier Pigeon WG." For precisely the same reasons you mention. > It's standard IETF procedure for one WG to build on another > WG's protocol. There are many examples of this. Of course review by the LISP > WG of any relevant specs (both prior to and during last call) may be > appropriate. This is also SOP. > It will be a normal exercise to maintain awareness and communication with the other WGs when there is such a spec. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
