Only to the RRG list, following Noel's lead: Hi Noel,
You wrote: >> I don't know the criteria is for creating a WG, but I guess the IETF >> doesn't create them except for projects which have sufficient merit in >> general > > Sure - but that is not in contradiction to my statement above. The IETF has a > long history of creating WG's to work on different alternatives. In such > circumstances, WG's simply serve to create standards in an _open_ way; they > do not in any way imply any sort of official IETF preference. OK. I understand that especially for an experimental set of RFCs establishing a WG doesn't mean an implication that other alternatives are not so viable. Still, it involves the IETF devoting resources and implicitly inviting others to devote resources. I understand the desire to have something developed in an open and indeed rather standardized manner, in preference to a more closed or ad-hoc approach. >> I think the LISP team could best facilitate progress towards scalable >> routing solutions by ... discussing in public why they think their >> LISP-ALT approach is better than the alternatives. > > The community has been discussing these issues for years, going back to > things like Multi6. It's been discussed to death already. Yet there's still plenty of life in the debate! - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
