Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Agreed.

                jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Grossman" <[email protected]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Phil Neumiller" <[email protected]>; "Vernon Schryver"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
"Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]>; "Einar Vollset"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Mike Sasuta"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Kamesh Medepalli"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [pilc] 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/