Hi Brian, >> Renumbering [I-D.carpenter-renum-needs-work] > > I'm flattered to be cited, but I hope this doesn't convey the > impression that the draft (now in the RFC queue) offers a > solution. It's more of the nature of a problem statement and > gap analysis. I think it would be helpful to state that, to > avoid any false expectations.
Sure, added some text in that direction. >> We recommended ILNP because we find it to be a clean solution for the >> architecture. It separates location from identity in a clear, >> straightforward way that is consistent with the remainder of the >> Internet architecture and makes both first-class citizens. Unlike >> the many map-and-encap proposals, there are no complications due to >> tunneling, indirection, or semantics that shift over the lifetime of >> a packets delivery. > > Two observations: > > 1. Maybe add some words to point out that it isn't a done deal. ILNP > hasn't had the kind of across the board review in the IETF that seems > essential, to look for corner cases and unexpected consequences. There's > work to be done. There's work to be done in ALL of the areas that we recommended. In fact, the first sentence of the recommendation reads: " ... recommend that the IETF pursue work in the following areas". > 2. The IETF has already standardised a different approach (shim6) and is > in the process of specifying LISP. While this may be the IETF's problem > to sort out, perhaps you should also point out that we'd end up with > a menagerie of three species by adding ILNP. You are correct, this is the IETF's problem. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
