> From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> What doesn't work well is to have everyone decide for himself how to
> change the architecture.
The reason we have/had a free-for-all on the architectural front is that the
IETF's choice for architectural direction (15 years ago) was non-viable (i.e.
wrong); it wasn't economically feasible (in terms of providing economic
benefits to early adopters, or otherwise having an economically viable
deployment plan), and it didn't offer any interesting/desirable new
capabilities (which was a big factor in the former).
With an 'approved direction' that didn't work, having people go off in their
own directions instead was an inevitable corollary.
Which is why I am urging the IETF to be _realistic_ now, and accept the world
as it actually is, and set direction from here on out based on that, and not
on what we wish would happen. Which means, for instance, that any design for
architecural change (e.g. introducing separation of location and identity) is
going to be somewhat ugly, because we don't have a clean sheet of paper to
work with. It also means accepting that we have multiple naming domains at
the end-end level, and will for the forseeable future; and trying to work out
an architectual direction for coping with that ('get rid of it' doesn't
count). Etc, etc, etc.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf