I gave the reasons for why the documents are in the current state. I WAS not speaking for the working group. Albert had two presentations from Berlin and Seuol about how we started out dividing the functionality into the *2* existing documents.
Dino > On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just a reminder as co-chair that the document, and document(s) structure is > owned by the working group. The original contributors intent is important, > as they thought about ti when preparing. But the decisions rests with the WG > membership, not "[t]he initial people who started out this effort." > > So I do not think saying to Damien "because we like it better" is really an > answer. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 4/3/17 8:46 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> >>>>> DSA: what about creating a specific document for reachability? >>>>> something like liveness problem? >>>> >>>> Here are the reasons: >>>> >>>> (1) We don’t want to have too many documents for someone to read >>>> to get the full picture of the LISP data-plane and control-plane. >>>> >>>> >>> Who is we? The WG or the authors? >> >> The initial people who started out this effort. That is, Albert, >> Luigi, you, and me. >> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
