> From: Ran Atkinson <[email protected]>
> I *believe* (could be wrong) that there were a small number of
> conceptual things that the RG did achieve rough consensus won. I'd
> like to see those noted as RG consensus items in the Recommendation
> document.
Indeed. In at least one case, I consider that rough agreement to be one of
the most important actual outputs of the RRG, and so I think it is
important that we make the point to the IETF that even though we did not
reach consensus on a specific design, we did have consensus on an
architecturl approach.
> there appears to be rough consensus within the RG that some form of
> ID/Locator split is desirable.
This one is _particularly_ crucial for us to record, as there are
apparently still some people out in the IETF who have not bought into this
(in some cases as a result of the faulty security analysis performed on
8+8 many years ago).
So if we could agree to add, say, something like:
'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it is both desirable to
separate location and identity, and also technically feasible to do so.'
I think that would be really important.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
