Subject: Re: [rrg] [lisp] [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:25:57 -0500 (EST)

> From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>

    >> I don't think the people working on LISP are trying to "convince" the
    >> IETF as a whole of the "merits of LISP".

    > I don't know the criteria is for creating a WG, but I guess the IETF
    > doesn't create them except for projects which have sufficient merit in
    > general

Sure - but that is not in contradiction to my statement above. The IETF has a
long history of creating WG's to work on different alternatives. In such
circumstances, WG's simply serve to create standards in an _open_ way; they
do not in any way imply any sort of official IETF preference.

    > I think the LISP team could best facilitate progress towards scalable
    > routing solutions by ... discussing in public why they think their
    > LISP-ALT approach is better than the alternatives.

The community has been discussing these issues for years, going back to
things like Multi6. It's been discussed to death already.

	Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:39:16 +1100

Only to the RRG list, following Noel's lead:

Hi Noel,

> do not in any way imply any sort of official IETF preference.

OK.  I understand that especially for an experimental set of
RFCs establishing a WG doesn't mean an implication that other
alternatives are not so viable.  Still, it involves the IETF
devoting resources and implicitly inviting others to devote
resources.

I understand the desire to have something developed in an open
and indeed rather standardized manner, in preference to a more
closed or ad-hoc approach.

> things like Multi6. It's been discussed to death already.

Yet there's still plenty of life in the debate!

  - Robin