Alex Zinin writes:
| Before the IETF will attack the engineering side of the problem,
| they will need to have a single set of requirements.
I respectfully disagree. Before the IETF will attack the
engineering side of the problem, they should and perhaps
must be presented with an architecture against which to
standardize.
I base this on my own personal experiences in watching
ideas arrive out of other RGs into the IETF. Some are
quickly standardized, and some live on forever. Well,
lots live on forever, and suffer essentially zero deployment
at the same time.
This is not a good state of affairs.
The "n-napkin protocol" approach works well in the
area of routing, but has suffered from having an opaque history
wrt the design, and a failure to meet some real requirements.
I think this RG can act as a filter for several n-napkin
protocols, and let the IETF do to them what it did to BGP
and diff-serv. :-)
| To me, the question is: is there a good reason NOT to have
| a single document, i.e., are the requirements sets you're seeing
| so much different from each other
You've read both reqs drafts, right? Do you have a personal opinion?
I'm collecting them...
(I think I already have the opinions of the people you're asking, fwiw.)
Sean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT