On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > F says "we give up." Well, we may. But if we are trying to get to a useful > conclusion, that isn't it.
Hi Joel, What, then, is your opinion? Is "give up" an acceptable next step? Or should we reject it? > I have been refraining from participating in this, because when all is said > and done it does not seem to tell us much. But what the heck. It hopefully tells us what working groups we want the IETF to create in order to write protocols and code. With a little luck it lets us make that statement to the rest of the IETF as a cohesive group instead of as individuals or as obviously biased cliques. Or maybe we don't get to consensus this way either. But if we don't try, we surely won't succeed. No participation is a vote for no working groups. We'll just kick around here the research group for a while longer. You paying attention Dino? No participation is a vote for no LISP working group too. Anyway, I'm trying to break the strategies into three sets: 1. Ideas which show significant promise. 2. Ideas that it's time to stop taking seriously. 3. All the rest, which we can reconsider if #1 doesn't pan out. I'm tackling #2 first in the hopes of focusing the discussion when we look at #1. I say we should tell the folks in GROW that it's time to stop seriously entertaining the idea that vanilla BGP (strategy F) will work out ok. What do you say? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
