Subject: Re: [RAM] Can we forget LISP, please?

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:51:38 -0500 (EST)

> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>

    > The details of the encapsulation are completely uninteresting  ...
    > I would even go so far as to say that we shouldn't mandate any, but
    > rather, allow vendors to implement different ones as required and
    > supported by the hardware available.

The rest of your message I want to ponder at more length, but this part I
think I can take issue with now.

The problem with letting vendors roll their own proprietary wrappings is
that then you lose interoperability, the ability to build a system out of
components from multiple vendors. That's been one of the biggest strengths
of the I* stack all along - the fact that all the standards are open, and
common, so that multi-vendor interoperability was a given.

Let's not throw this away without a good reason - and I don't see a good
reason gere.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:48:51 +0100

> common, so that multi-vendor interoperability was a given.

You're right, of course. Although this is a detail and we can have  
many different encapsulations, and maybe there is not even a need to  
define one as a lowest common denominator, it's still good to have  
interoperability.