AMEN!
-- Alex ZininMonday, March 04, 2002, 10:52:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> My personal prejudices:
> I would certainly like to see us able to discuss several routing > architectures. However, what we are discussing right now is what the > routing architectures should accomplish. I for one am going to find it > very confusing to discuss in the same working group two architectures, each > of which is working against different requirements FOR THE SAME PROBLEM.
> It would not surprise me if there was more than one viable architectural > approach to a reasonable next generation routing system. But if we can not > even agree on what problem we are attempting to solve, the discussions are > going to get very confusing. And when we are done I can not imagine the > IETF being able to make head or tail of the results under that > circumstance. It is going to be hard enough to explain one new > architecture that meets a single clearly explainable set of goals. To try > to get the IETF to be able to actual make progress on the basis of two sets > of goals as well as two sets of protocol(s) just seems unlikely. I prefer > not to set us up for failure.
> Yours, > Joel M. Halpern
> At 06:39 PM 3/4/02 +0000, Sean Doran wrote: >>I would really like to see it be possible for EACH of these >>routing architectures to be operated IN PARALLEL in different >>parts of the Internet, but then I get accused of smoking strange >>things sometimes, so take that with a grain of salt.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT