Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Draft Status, from a protocol developer's angle.

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:10:47 -0700

Steve,

>> Nevertheless, the bottom line still is: I'm doing my best,
>> but it might not be enough.

> Stephen Kent wrote:
> Any maybe it's not good enough to become an IETF standard.

This is not my primary goal. Let me give you a few examples about
"standards":
[precision: I do *not* work for Cisco]

- EIGRP. I use it all the time, and there is no IETF equivalent.
- HSRP. I use it all the time, and switching to VRPP is not high on my
priority list.
- ISL: I am phasing it out in favor of 802.1q. Have any idea where
802.1q comes from?

The IETF is not the only place where standards are developed. If this
workgroup produces unrealistic requirements that protocol developers
can't meet, protocol developers will either ignore the requirements
(which is possible, as it is very well understood that a routing
protocol can't please everyone), or take their work outside the IETF
(which is what I have done already, AAMOF).

If this WG doesn't mind some advice, try not to get into the same schism
as multi6, which is deadlocked in non-consensual, impossible to meet
requirements.

Michel.

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

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:18:49 -0700

> The IETF is not the only place where standards are developed.

Michel, Steve, this an off-topic for this list, please
keep it focused.

> If this

> as multi6, which is deadlocked in non-consensual, impossible to meet

The only way to make sure right things happen somewhere in the IETF
is to be part of the process. If you consider yourself a member of
this WG and are really concerned with the quality of its products,
I'm sure we'll soon see a lot of constructive suggestions and useful
contributions to its work.

Thanks.

Alex