2010.9.29 ср 16:15:42 Joel M. Halpern: > Toni, you appear to be trying to assert that there is some sort of IRTF > Rough Consensus on what should be named by Locators.
Nope. I am seeking consensus in the RRG on certain basic concepts. This I am doing upon approval of ILNP and its text: "The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered controversial." > Since the question heavily depends upon other factors, I for one chose > to ignore your asking an incomplete and underspecified question that is > unrelated to the agreed work items of the RRG. Ask, comment or point a direction on the matter, and I will complete and/or specify my question. I am asking as simple as possible questions so that the least possible divertion of the topic occurs in replies. > I would also note that it is for the Chair (or chairs) to decide when an > idea or proposal has been discussed sufficiently, and has sufficient > relevance that determining WG Rough Consensus is called for. it is then > the chairs job to conduct that, and to draw the conclusion. Ah, I see why the current recommendation "reflects the decision of the co-chairs", not the consesus of the group. How about the chair checking the consensus on a set of documents, of which each contains the phrase "virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered controversial"? I am provoking the resolution of controversial issues that have key effects upon the entire architecture. Join. > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > On 9/29/2010 9:02 AM, Toni Stoev wrote: > ... > >> So, do you consent that nodes (instead of interfaces) have to be > >> referenced with locators(addresses)/identifiers? > > > > This time all of us (who expressed opinion) are for node reference (instead > > of interface's). > > > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
