Re: [lisp-interest] While we're waiting for lisp@ietf.org to come up.....

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>

    > I though the consensus from the last meeting was that LISP would be an
    > IRTF WG, not IETF.

To me, it would seem more proper to consider the question in terms of goals,
proper forum, etc, rather than simply 'what people's opinions are'.

Using that framework, I ask two questions: i) is the intention to produce a
complete protocol specification, in sufficient detail to produce an
interoperable, functional implementation, along with at least one
implementation (this entire term being something I view as a 'necessary but
not sufficient' condition), and ii) more important, is it intended to put the
product of that effort into actual service, i.e. have people actually do real
work using it. Something that fulfils both of these I would _tend_ to think
belongs in the IETF, not the IRTF.

It's my understanding that the LISP effort answers 'yes' to both, so doing
something in the IETF does seem appropriate, given that.

	Noel