I would disagree somewhat.
While we are not MBAs, nor economists, and we are not (I hope) going to
do detailed business case analysis of deployment, nonetheless,
deployment is arguably the key question.
If there is not sufficient incentive to deploy the solution we suggest,
then it will not get deployed. And an undeployed solution is not a
solution.
(Many years ago Noel ran into this with Nimrod, where the difficulty in
articulating a benefit for anyone deploying as long as only a few folks
had deployed created an almost insuperable barrier to adoption.)
There are actually similar issues with several of the solutions. If the
interoperability depends upon certain kinds of deployment, then there
better be reasonable reasons for those deployments to take place.
Put differently, we know that flag days no longer happen.
Hence there has to be an incremental deployment story, with reasonable
benefits / incentives for that incremental deployment to take place.
(How big the incentives have to be obviously depends upon multiple
factors, including how big the costs are.)
Yours,
Joel
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 4/26/10 6:23 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
I feel that it is misleading to suggest that "It is technically
feasible to separate location and identity" unless there is at least
one proposal that does this that we agree is feasible.
Misleading to what end? To lead people to believe that there exists at
least one approach for locator/identity split that is technically
feasible? Has anyone claimed such an approach is infeasible? It seems
to me the debate within this group (at least amongst active
participants) hasn't been that, but rather which approach of the several
that have survived is MOST feasible.
In fact personally I think that it *is* feasible, but it is not yet
clear whether it is worth the cost (which I suppose is not the point
of "feasibility") [...]
Looking at incentives for deployment to me seems like a very reasonable
approach, but I don't know if it should be mandatory in this group,
given the type of expertise that requires. Either we're getting into
the MBA-level discussion of whether it's good for business, which seems
entirely inappropriate, or we're getting into a formal economic modeling
approach, which seems better handled elsewhere in the academic realm,
where real economists participate.
'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.'
The problem with that, from my perspective, is that you're
putting the engineering cart (the details of how to do it)
before the architecture horse (the high-level goal of
separating location and identity). To put it another way,
you're holding progress on the architectural front hostage
to agreement on the engineering front.
If we ignore technical feasibility, then there are a *lot* of things
which are desirable goals.
Yes, but this is the one WE are considering whether it is important for
US articulate.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
