Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Discontiguous Deployment (Show of Hands)....

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:07:42 -0400 (EDT)

> o Discontiguous deployment should be included as a capability any
> proposed mechanism MUST have.

I vote for this.

--Sandy

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:58:57 -0400 (EDT)

>So if we say that we require discontiguous deployment while at the
>same time we know that discontiguous deployment is a certainty,
>that's a waste of electrons. Worse, this invites speculation about
>the meaning of the requirement down the road.

What is certain is that non-contiguous deployment will happen.

What is not certain  is that solutions will support non-contiguous
deployment.

We are stating a requirement that solutions must be able to be
deployed in a non-contiguous deployment.

--Sandy