Re: draft-enns-*.txt

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Monday, Feb 17, 2003, at 15:59 America/Montreal, Andy Bierman wrote:
> The problem with this approach is that it fosters proprietary
> solutions.
I don't think that is necessarily true.

> Every vendor either has or will come up with their
> own solution approach.  On the other hand, a standard solution
> offers the chance of convergence on a single approach.
The evidence in hand (e.g. this I-D, your statement that cisco
is coding it up also) is that several vendors are perfectly
willing and capable of collaborating on a joint spec on this
topic even when it isn't a Proposed Standard.

I actually think that having 2 or more approaches get prototyped
and experimented with would be beneficial, though that seems not
terribly likely this time.  If folks implement & experiment,
even with just this one spec, before standardisation, the
results will be better when stuff is standardised.

> I don't expect a fully
> optimized, close-to-perfect standard until it reached FS.
The deployed Internet runs on I-Ds and Proposed Standard RFCs.
Virtually nothing (even among widely deployed stuff) makes
it to Full Standard.  And I also consider this whole assertion
to be a bit of a Red Herring trying to distract from what I
consider the real issue (standardising something before we
have any substantial operational experience with it).

We disagree, but it is not unexpected that on a list this
size that reasonable people might reach divergent conclusions.

Cheers,

Ran


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>