Subject: RE: [Speermint] TLS, etc - Local-policy versus WG mandate

From: "Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:02:47 -0500

Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:

>My primary rebuttal is this can be solved in many ways...should we
define all of these, which 
>would simply take away an operator's own routing creativity and
flexibility?  ...or, should we 
>define principle functions, which may be implemented to enable peering
in manners that enable 
>greater creativity and flexibility in peering?

We should define principle functions that would allow creativity and
flexiblity in peering.

Sohel Khan, Ph.D.
Technology Strategist
Sprint-Nextel
913-794-1470 (office)
913-486-3145 (cell)

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:30:34 -0400

I'm sorry, but standards are nearly the exact opposite of "creativity and
flexibility".  We create standards to be interoperable.  They severely
restrict what you can do so that there are no surprises, your implementation
matches the other guy's.

If you want creativity and flexibility, be my guest - start a peering
service, define your interfaces any way you want and see who comes.  Use all
the creativity and flexibility you can.

If you want interoperable implementations, then we specify, with very little
flexibility, and almost no creativity, what to do.

Options in protocols are BAD.  The best protocols have only one way to do
something, and everyone implements it the same way.  The worst protocols
have elaborate negotiation mechanisms so that everyone's favorite choices
have standards coverage.

Bah on your creativity and flexibility  :)

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khan, Sohel Q [CTO] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:03 PM
> To: Daryl Malas; David Schwartz
> Cc: [email-masked]; Uzelac, Adam
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] TLS, etc - Local-policy versus WG mandate
> 
> 
>