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

[Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Noel Chiappa wrote:
>     > 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.

Agreed. The other aspect is the sum of the documents; if they are all
experimental, then it seems to me that this belongs in the IRTF. I
appreciate that there have been examples of experimental suites that
were not done in the IRTF, but that seems like something to be
corrected, not repeated.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkklR0ACgkQE5f5cImnZrvdiwCggb9i8H5GHgjWvHvtCaDKLwuC
ZrAAmwSPXRp4AAdS5qr5J7GNSPzdon77
=ZOYs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----