Ross, On May 17, 2010, at 16:05 MDT, Ross Callon wrote: >>> (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.
Related to the last half of the above paragraph, are you saying that RFC 4984 is not a sufficient "problem statement"? If so, why? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4984 -shane > 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 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
