At 08:20 AM 12/12/01 +0100, Sean Doran wrote:
>| >> this split is "institutionalized"? I am sure the authors and
>| >> editors will be happy to think of definitive ways to exclude
>| >> architectures which ELIMINATE the concept of intra-domain/inter-domain
>| >> protocol splits.
>|
>| The editor heartily concurs (assuming that the rest of the RRG
>| concurs with the idea!)
>
>Well, except that I missed a "not" in between "ways" and "to" in the
>2nd line above, which you fortunately seem to have obligingly
>hallucinated into the sentence, figuring that must have been what
>I meant (I hope). :-)
no. i did not hallucinate anything. i personally think, and it is
my impression that the requirements sub-group was in agreement,
that such an artifical and forced split is A Bad Idea. If at some
point you say this is the inter/intra domain split, then you end
up forcing, in the architecture, certain choices which i do not
think are good to force. more importantly, you force a configuration
such that if you've got a hierarchy of routing elements and the
split is 'in th emiddle' of that hierarchy someplace, then you
force everything underneath the split to follow the inter-domain
rules and everything above to follow the intra-domain. but the
stuff above the split might be "intra-domain" for some larger
'domain'.
>It was kinda hard to do editing where I was sitting (802.11 vs this hotel sigh).
yeah. sigh.
f
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT