Subject: Re: [Status] Summary of STATUS BOF and the next steps

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 21:08:24 -0400 (EDT)

> From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>

    > I'm happy with either source routing or explicit routing. If you insist
    > upon a new term, why not 'directed forwarding|routing'.

Now I'm somewhat confused, because you aren't stuck on 'source routing' or
'explicit routing', but... 'segment routing' is a no-go - apparently because
you find it "to be startlingly non-evocative" - you didn't, AFAICR, put
forward any other reason it's unacceptable?

Look, I am not at all invested in 'segment routing'. If someone comes up with
a good alternative, that's fine with me.

    > You were making incorrect statements about MPLS

No. What I said, exactly, was "an MPLS path, for instance (which I don't
consider a tunnel)". The key phrase there being "I don't consider" - i.e.
it's my opinion.

    > From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>

    > rfc3031 is a product of IETF.
    > ...
    > In the context of IETF work, reading supported by IETF documents (RFCs)
    > takes precedence over reading supported by other non-IETF documents.

The world of computers/networking is larger than the IETF. If an IETF
document re-defined "packet" or "datagram", would that be definitive?
(Heck, RFC-1753/RFC-1992 _did_ re-define 'datagram', but I don't go around
demanding that people always use that definition!)

Anyway, there are other IETF documents that do use the 'layer 2...N wrapped
inside layer N' definition of "tunnel" - see RFC-1241, RFC-1853, etc (and
that's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back).

    > From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>

    > next time you are updating this wikipedia entry

I have _never_ worked on that entry, and have no intention of ever so doing.

And this whole argument about tunnels is almost as stupid as much of the
flaming on the IETF main list. I feel like I've fallen into an episode of
Monty Python. (For people who don't get the reference, see this:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argument_Sketch

which will explain it.)

	Noel

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 01:29:54 +0000

Noel,

Snipped, comments inline.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 6:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Status] Summary of STATUS BOF and the next steps
> 
> 'explicit routing', but... 'segment routing' is a no-go - apparently because you
> find it "to be startlingly non-evocative" - you didn't, AFAICR, put forward any
> other reason it's unacceptable?

[JD]  If a term has only passing familiarity with what it is describing, it is effectively useless.

> consider a tunnel)". The key phrase there being "I don't consider" - i.e.

[JD]  Right.  I was simply pointing out that your opinion is wrong.