Hi,
Sorry for being a bit late to this discussion (day job and other
realities intruding), but having had a small role in the Dublin BOF, I
don't think it likely (in the extreme) there would be significant
benefit from having a second BOF. I'd like to second Dave's seconding
of Brain's statement:
On Jan 21, 2009, at 4:02 PM, David Meyer wrote:
In any event, Brian really summed it up quite nicely:
...
But I don't see the point in a second BOF; the idea
that a BOF could resolve in a couple of hours the
issues that the RRG has been discussing since early
2007 seems unlikely.
I'd actually go a bit further and suggest that any attempt by any
group to resolve the issues the RRG has been discussing (or any of the
various other discussions that occurred prior to RRG taking this on)
as a pre-requisite for creating a working group to standardize an
experimental protocol in this space would be equivalent to declaring
no protocol in this space will _ever_ be standardized.
LISP is _an_ approach towards routing scalability. It is not the only
one. Standardizing the experimental protocol would allow folks
interested in routing scalability to explore one or two axes of the
possible solution space. To be honest, I'm unclear as to why there is
even a question as to whether a WG should be created...
Regards,
-drc
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
