Paul, Alternately, it is disheartening to see an expectation that solutions coming in will simply be rubber-stamped after enough time with no improvement.
It's rough consensus & running code, after all. Regards, Alia On Jul 26, 2016 5:40 AM, "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Alia, > > > On Jul 25, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Paul, > > > > Option 1 is giving up on the Standards process and waiting until the > market has > > decided. > > > > There are always pre-standard implementations and deployments. > Regrettably, > > there are more than would have been the case had better discussion > happened > > earlier in NVO3. > > > > Perhaps another way to look at this is: in the real world multiple options > exist to solve / address different requirements. This isn't a bad thing, > and we, as a community recognize that. > > Further, given the implementation realities of the protocols, it is > disheartening to see the value of running code diminished/ing at the IETF. > > Paul > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
