>> 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
In deciding how to vote on the four questions, each of us need to figure out whether we agree with the statements. The one statement that I haven't decided on is "The RG has rough consensus that separating identity from location is desirable and technically feasible." One problem is that I don't think that there is precise enough agreement on what this means for the apparent consensus (if there is one) to mean much. Also, it is not clear to me whether the statement will be interpreted as "desirable given a complete and thorough understanding of the costs and implications", or whether the statement means "generally desirable, but without precise consideration of the costs and implications". I agree with the observation that "... However, the RG does NOT have consensus on the best engineering approach to such an identity/location split", and wonder whether this implies that I should not be concerned with the fact that I don't think that we agree on what precisely an ID/LOC split is. I think that RFC4984 is good enough to motivate work that is leading to increased understanding of what is possible in routing and addressing, and associated costs and implications. I also think that RFC4984 is a sufficiently accurate reflection of the discussion that occurred during the Amsterdam routing and addressing workshop. We know more now. Hopefully we will know still more in six months or a year. Ross _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
