Suppose hypothetically that we do all agree that it is desirable to separate
location and identity, and that it is feasible to do so. It seems highly likely
that we don't agree on the feasibility of any one specific scheme that
separates location and identity. Thus what does it mean if we say that each
person who has participated in the RRG discussions separately feels that there
is *some* feasible way to do so?
Also, of course there are some people in the world who would feel that "all
other things being equal, it would be nice to separate identity and location",
but who don't feel that they have yet noticed any feasible method to do so, or
perhaps that they haven't noticed any way to do so that is likely to gain
enough traction that it would be feasible to actually get the world to deploy
it. Such folks are likely to have not participated heavily in the RRG
discussions for the simple reason that they don't have an approach to push.
Also, of course the discussion is naturally slanted towards people who feel
that the work is worthwhile.
Thus to me the statement:
>> 'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it is both desirable to
>> separate location and identity, and also technically feasible to do
>> so.'
seems to be somewhere on the boundary between meaningless and misleading.
Perhaps a better sentence might be:
>> 'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it would be desirable to
>> separate location and identity, should we agree on a way to do so.'
To me the value in the report (which is considerable) comes from the knowledge
gained in the effort to create it; in the good description of multiple possible
approaches; and in the fact that the chairs (as individuals) have picked a
specific small set of approaches which to me as an individual looking at the
chair's endorsement look to be worth studying.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Noel
Chiappa
Sent: 23 April 2010 17:32
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [rrg] Next pass
> From: Scott Brim <[email protected]>
> I don't know of anyone.
Good, then it shouldn't be controversial! :-)
(Seriously, though, I am reliably informed, by someone who's currently out
trying to 'sell' a location/identity split scheme, that they do exist.)
>> 'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it is both desirable to
>> separate location and identity, and also technically feasible to do
>> so.'
> As long as you don't try to define identity.
Which is part of why I stuck with the generic concept terms 'location' and
'identity', and didn't use any specific examplars of either.
But seriously, if anyone disagrees with that concept, let's hear it,
otherwise I would like to ask Tony to include it as a 'group endorsed
high-level recommendation'.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
