On 2009-02-17 18:51, Tony Li wrote: > > > Hi Brian, > > > |> The argument that took place between the IETF and network > |operators when > |> shim6 was recommended. > | > |SHIM6 is in development, so I don't think it's ever been > |recommended yet, > |and anyway it's not the RRG's job to decide. > > > I distinctly recall it being recommended at a NANOG long ago and the ensuing > broohaha.
Advocated, certainly. Brouhaha, certainly. But every still shim6 document still contains the words "valid for a maximum of six months" and it isn't even aimed at ISPs anyway. > > |So can we just > |say that solutions above the network layer (including shim6, sctp > |and multipath transport) are simply out of scope: the RRG has decided > |not to work on them. Anything else is speculation. > > > Except that that's not exactly true. The RRG has not exactly declared them > out of scope. So far, solutions that are above the networking layer require > per-host renumbering, and we have consensus that those solutions are not > acceptable. If someone figured out an architecture (possibly combining > automated renumbering technology) that fixed things above the network layer > in an acceptable fashion, we would definitely consider it. Right. So the wording needs to be more subtle. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
