Subject: Re: [rrg] Next pass

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:48:57 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Ran Atkinson <[email-masked]>

    > I *believe* (could be wrong) that there were a small number of
    > conceptual things that the RG did achieve rough consensus won. I'd
    > like to see those noted as RG consensus items in the Recommendation
    > document.

Indeed. In at least one case, I consider that rough agreement to be one of
the most important actual outputs of the RRG, and so I think it is
important that we make the point to the IETF that even though we did not
reach consensus on a specific design, we did have consensus on an
architecturl approach.

    > there appears to be rough consensus within the RG that some form of
    > ID/Locator split is desirable.

This one is _particularly_ crucial for us to record, as there are
apparently still some people out in the IETF who have not bought into this
(in some cases as a result of the faulty security analysis performed on
8+8 many years ago).

So if we could agree to add, say, something like:

  'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it is both desirable to
  separate location and identity, and also technically feasible to do so.'

I think that would be really important.

	Noel

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:55:11 -0400

> (in some cases as a result of the faulty security analysis performed on

I don't know of anyone.

>   separate location and identity, and also technically feasible to do so.'

As long as you don't try to define identity.  4984 had a limited definition.

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:54:29 -0700

>> (in some cases as a result of the faulty security analysis performed on

They exist.  Some are even on this list.  More are not.

Tony