> Regarding this discussion about an indirection layer, I am thinking we > really should propose the formation of some forum for discussion of > these issues. [...] Call it an indirection layer or a stabilisation > layer or whatever you want, but we need a forum where we can specify > the problem we are trying to solve and to consider the possible > solutions for it. Does anybody agree? I don't disagree with the need for a forum at some point, just with the presumption that a single layer can reasonably solve all of the problems associated with the various sources of address changes. So I'd really push back against an effort to try to accomplish the latter. Also, experience with the IRTF "name space research group" (which was tasked to work on a similar problem, though phrased somewhat differently) has probably left some people (including probably myself) feeling a bit ... well, hesitant. If a relatively small, select group of very talented experts couldn't agree on how to solve a problem, is an open forum consisting of an arbitrary number of people with varying levels of expertise likely to do better? Bottom line is that it's very difficult to reconcile the views of people with experience in very different parts of the network - apps vs. routing vs. transport - even if they're all highly competent. It's probably even more difficult if you have larger numbers of people and you can't assume the competence level. Obviously we need to solve this problem. We just need to be careful about how we go about it if we hope to be successful. Personally I think a forum might be a bit premature, as it would distract various peoples' energy away from efforts to draft strawman architectures, and instead tempt them to spend time getting in sync with the group. Maybe we could have a BOF in Minneapolis and wait for after that to formally organize a discussion group? Ketih