>> (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
I have questions on the first sentence of the second question. For the first sentence, does "desirable" mean "worth the cost, having fully understood what the costs are (for each approach, or at least for some approach)", or does it mean "in an abstract sense, ignoring costs, all else being equal, a good idea"? Also, does "consensus that separating identity from location is desirable" necessarily imply consensus on what it means to separate identity from location? My guess is no, based on my next point. The second sentence I don't have any problem with: If we are saying "we don't have consensus on how to separate Identity from Location", then IMHO it is perfectly reasonable that this also means, or is even caused by, a lack of consensus on precisely what the problem is. Ross PS: to me, the other three questions seem well enough formed that I have no trouble figuring out how I would myself vote on them. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
