Earlier, Toni Stoev wrote: > ILNP obviously has unresloved issues. Please describe the issues, either technical issues or documentation issues, precisely. Vague assertions like "obviously has unresolved issues" are not helpful.
The best way to get any issues resolved in the next set of ILNP I-Ds, which I am working on today, is to cite a specific ILNP I-D, Section, Page, and Paragraph where one thinks an issue exists-- and then to clearly describe the issue. Direct email to me works fine, or one may post to the RG list. I totally accept that there might be places where the documents aren't clear. So I am keen to get feedback on where the I-Ds need to be edited. So far, I haven't seen a whole lot of constructive or actionable feedback. (Credit where due, some folks have given excellent feedback. For example, tli pointed out an issue with the ICMP Locator Update document. I now am working to fix that.) > So why not just answer questions, instead of making people > read additional non-routing related documentation. I'm not in any way clear what you might mean by "additional non-routing related documentation". One can debate whether ILNP is more about naming (which I think it is) than routing (which remains LPM), but that debate would not in any way be useful. It is a waste of many people's time (the poster's, mine, and many other people on the list) when someone asks questions that are already answered in the existing ILNP documentation. ILNP is not part of my day job, so I have very little time available for list discussions. That also means, sadly, that I am not able to run a tutorial on the RRG mailing list. There have been presentations to the RG in the past, which I imagine are available online in the Proceedings of the meetings. I am happy to respond to questions where someone has *read the documents* and has some specific point of confusion or correction. Other RG members also have answered various ILNP questions from time to time, for which I am very grateful. This demonstrates that a fair number of RG members already understand ILNP. Yesterday's question was about the fact that ILNP uses EUI-64 syntax for Identifier values. This has long been clearly documented. It is mentioned in virtually every research paper on ILNP. It is also mentioned in the most basic of the ILNP documents (draft-rja-ilnp-intro-*.txt). Further, reference to the use of EUI-64 syntax has been in that I-D for many versions of that document, so it isn't a recent addition of some sort. So asking what form an ILNP Identifier takes demonstrates purely laziness -- someone who can't be bothered to make a reasonable effort to read existing readily available documentation. Yours, Ran Atkinson _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
