On Mar 20, 2013, at 12:56 PM, [email protected] (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
> And I don't think there would be any _protocol_ changes needed to deal with > such a thing, just implementation changes. And since we don't normally > mandate implementation details, why can't we just say 'here's this thing - > make sure your implementation deals with it if it happens'. I think this is a really important point. It leaves room for "easy process" experimentation. And allows vendors to tradeoff differently. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
