Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

>
> I'm not sure that taking the TRIGGERS discussion somewhere else would change it significantly, and am even less sure that doing so would improve the discussion.
>
> The most helpful request *I* can make is to ask all interested participants in this thread to subscribe to the PILC list, so we can really trim down the recipients lists and reduce the number of duplicate copies that we get when we participate actively in the discussion.
>
>

The other request that I can make is that we try to keep this discussion civil.   As in no ad hominem attacks on the motivations or technical competence of others with differing views.

This said, it appears that a consensus could be reached on this list that this is a useful (or at least acceptable) work item, as long as the intended result is to be informational rather than standards track (whether the IESG agrees is, of course, another question, although one hopes that a degree of community support would influence their decisions).   My further suggestion along these lines is to make these triggers abstract (not define a concrete syntax for them).  This would obviate the
possibility of standards track RFCs.  If the objective is to provide a more useful framework for discussing Layer 2/IP layer/end-to-end protocol interactions, syntactic bindings would only clutter up the effort and draft(s).  If syntactic bindings were needed, they could be produced later, and possibly elsewhere.



_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/