[rrg] [lisp] [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

[Robin Whittle]

Only to the RRG list, following Noel's lead:

Hi Noel,

You wrote:

>> I don't know the criteria is for creating a WG, but I guess the IETF
>> doesn't create them except for projects which have sufficient merit in
>> general
> 
> Sure - but that is not in contradiction to my statement above. The IETF has a
> long history of creating WG's to work on different alternatives. In such
> circumstances, WG's simply serve to create standards in an _open_ way; they
> do not in any way imply any sort of official IETF preference.

OK.  I understand that especially for an experimental set of
RFCs establishing a WG doesn't mean an implication that other
alternatives are not so viable.  Still, it involves the IETF
devoting resources and implicitly inviting others to devote
resources.

I understand the desire to have something developed in an open
and indeed rather standardized manner, in preference to a more
closed or ad-hoc approach.


>> I think the LISP team could best facilitate progress towards scalable
>> routing solutions by ... discussing in public why they think their
>> LISP-ALT approach is better than the alternatives.
> 
> The community has been discussing these issues for years, going back to
> things like Multi6. It's been discussed to death already.

Yet there's still plenty of life in the debate!

  - Robin