Taking the workgroup 'hat' off for a moment (I was going to say 'underpants', but that is just a _bad_ mental image :)
I think what Eliot says here holds true. In respect to LISP there is a level of expertise here. However adopting a view that we be exclusive to a core is a little premature. Perhaps in time a LISP-EXT might pop up, perhaps not. Your observation about preferring ALTO is actually a perfect example of preference. You might prefer to go to ALTO, others may choose LISP. The bottom line for me is not seeing a meaningless turf war commence over standards work. The ultimate win is that the work gets done. Not specifically which WG it ends up in, as I'm sure that there will be sufficient review (both volunteered and requested) by many parties from various WGs and areas. Cheers Terry On 29/09/11 10:31 PM, "Eliot Lear" <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, I think the question hangs on (1) where will the expertise be? Are > they in ALTO or LISP or both? What expertise is needed? The IETF has > addressed this problem in both dimensions that have been discussed. For > example, the DHCP and DNSEXT groups are long standing precisely because the > expertise necessary to extend those protocols can really only be found in > those groups. It DOES require a flexible management view from within a > working group. If orthodoxy sets in (and we've seen that before) clever > engineers find ways to route around the damage. I am not here speaking of > LISP, mind you. > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
