> ...Second, the second clause ("also technically feasible to do so")
> indicates that the considered engineering opinion of the group
> is that it is, well, technically feasible - something else which
> has been questioned in the past.I feel that it is misleading to suggest that "It is technically feasible to separate location and identity" unless there is at least one proposal that does this that we agree is feasible. In fact personally I think that it *is* feasible, but it is not yet clear whether it is worth the cost (which I suppose is not the point of "feasibility"), and I am not sure whether I would agree on the feasibility of any approach to which you would also agree on the feasibility. > >> 'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it would be desirable to > >> separate location and identity, should we agree on a way to do so.' > > The problem with that, from my perspective, is that you're > putting the engineering cart (the details of how to do it) > before the architecture horse (the high-level goal of > separating location and identity). To put it another way, > you're holding progress on the architectural front hostage > to agreement on the engineering front. If we ignore technical feasibility, then there are a *lot* of things which are desirable goals. Progress on the architectural front needs to be hostage to the feasibility of defining, agreeing on, implementing and deploying the result, and to an evaluation of whether it will be worth people's effort to deploy the result. Of course, in some cases in the past "agreement" has come after a solution was first defined in an IETF or other group, and implemented, and deployed. Ross _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
