On 8/9/2016 6:54 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: ... > Recall that we're talking about a choice between 3 protocols > where the highest technical advantage is extensibility or ability to > be implemented > on many common router architectures.
IMO, the highest advantage is widest participation. Extensibility reduces flux that can impede participation, but allows for long-term stability that improves participation. Ease of implementation increases participation at the outset but can require ossifying aspects that impede later participation. I agree these two tensions should be balanced. > > There has to be a plausible reason for folks to actually implement > whatever > encapsulation is done. The IETF needs to be practical in its > selections. Running > code (or hardware) in this case does matter - not just speculative > future hardware. Not truly speculative, but reasonable predictions are useful. Had we limited ourselves to only protocols that were efficiently implemented in the existing hardware, we never would have proposed IPv4 or TCP. Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
