On 1/22/09 12:48 AM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote:
Your question is: does one size (of approach) fits all and the answer is no. Indeed, these situations can not be compared (SHIM6 is a WG whereas HIP is a WG and a RG) but none did intend to address the Internet routing system scalability.
It's not entirely so. The routing system was clearly in peoples' minds when HIP was in its early stages. Bob Moskowitz was involved in the Name Space Research Group (NSRG) back when it existed, and as a co-chair of that group I was asked to comment on the chartering on both HIP groups. The NSRG looked at HIP in the light of route scalability. This was one reason that Mike O'Dell (author of 8+8) was interested.
Was there was any alternative propose to HIP at the host level as a layer 3.5 mechanism? That is really where SHIM6 comes in, which as I recall was an outgrowth of MULTI6 and Tony Li's early proposal on NOID. Bob Braden, John Wrocklawski (?), et al argued at one point (and I'm sorry I don't have the cite) that we have all the names we need in the IP stack. Both NOID and SHIM6 were, at least in part, evolutions on that notion, and a nameless (stack-wise) alternative to HIP.
And so while I agree with your high level point that one size does not fit all, I would say that the policy here as I understand it from Jari is simply that he will not favor one proposal over another and he will not short circuit the RRG process, while at the same time he will provide a venue for work where there is sufficient interest to mature the specifications through community involvement.
Eliot _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
