Hi Tony, Thanks for incorporating my critique of LISP, which was improved with the help of Noel Chiappa to correct two mistakes:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-04#section-2.2 Noel has written a second critique of LISP. Both of us think our critique is better, and more fundamental, than the other. Neither of us would be happy with just the other's critique being in the RRG report. The fact that mine was written before Noel's shouldn't matter. There's a lot to criticise about LISP because it has been developed the most, has a bunch of problems and has long been the most prominent potential solution to the routing scaling problem. It has an IETF WG, a test network and a several people trying to write their own implementations. Responding to Eliot, you wrote: >> I think that's a theoretical problem, Tony, but is it a practical one? > > Yes, I think it is. How could there be a practical problem, since the LISP designers only used 206 words for their summary? So there's no physical shortage of space. Perhaps you think it would be a bit unbalanced to have more words of criticism for LISP than for other proposals - but maybe LISP won't be the only one that requires more than 500 words in order for RRG people to be happy. The 500 word limit is completely arbitrary, is half the length of the summary's limit and did not result from any kind of consensus-seeking process. I think that if the LISP team were supporting the RRG process more assiduously, they would have far more than 500 critical words to say about Ivip. Just because some summaries are within 500 words doesn't mean this is the best outcome. Besides, look at some proposals currently languishing without anyone bothering enough about them to write a critique. Using the unused space (794 words) to enable more critical honours to be bestowed upon LISP seems like a good idea to me. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
