Dave Crocker wrote:
I would find it particularly helpful to have a concise statement from someone who says that PANA will not work. Cannot be implemented (properly) by virtue of technical errors or documentation too confusing to understand. Or cannot be deployed and used, by virtue of administrative complexity or, again, documentation too confusing to understand.
The fact that the IETF is supposed to be based on "Rough consensus and running code" is completely being missed here. Currently there are multiple interoperable implementation of the protocol in addition to there existing an open-source implementation as well. The fact that several years of peoples work and effort has gone into this is being ignored by claims that I find quite have a vested interest.
Absent this, I will ask why it is productive to note that the emperor is pursuing an idiosynchratic sartorial style?
I would also expect to hear a response to this. I would also like to ask if the people who claim to be unable to understand the scenarios where PANA can be applied have attended a PANA WG meeting or have cared to ask these questions on the ML.
d/
-Raj _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf