RJ Atkinson allegedly wrote on 05/17/2010 14:39 EDT: > Votes are EITHER "Yes" which means "I can tolerate this > statement, even if the wording is not ideal" XOR > "No" which means I cannot tolerate this statement and > disagree with it.
Ran, since you put it that way, I believe the first two don't just have editorial problems, they are misleading. > (1) "The Internet continuing down the current architectural path, > whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of > the DFZ RIB/FIB, is not believed to be scalable or viable." Multihoming itself isn't the problem, and the increase in RIB/FIB rate*state might only be an increment, depending on how multihoming is used. (I won't suggest text changes.) > (2) "The RG has rough consensus that separating identity from > location is desirable and technically feasible. However, > the RG does NOT have consensus on the best engineering > approach to such an identity/location split." I have a problem with the last sentence. There are multiple identification functions that depend on location-related information. It's a set of problems, not just a problem. Some people still think there is a particular loc/id separation problem that has to be solved and that a particular technology will solve "it". A major reason for that is that we claimed that for years. Now that we know better, we need to be very careful how we phrase our statements in order to dissuade people from that (wrong) idea and don't mislead them. See you ... Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
