Regarding this discussion about an indirection layer, I am thinking we
really should propose the formation of some forum for discussion of
these issues. [...] Call it an indirection layer or a stabilisation
layer or whatever you want, but we need a forum where we can specify
the problem we are trying to solve and to consider the possible
solutions for it. Does anybody agree?
I don't disagree with the need for a forum at some point, just with the
presumption that a single layer can reasonably solve all of the problems
associated with the various sources of address changes. So I'd really
push back against an effort to try to accomplish the latter.
Also, experience with the IRTF "name space research group" (which was
tasked to work on a similar problem, though phrased somewhat
differently) has probably left some people (including probably myself)
feeling a bit ... well, hesitant. If a relatively small, select
group of very talented experts couldn't agree on how to solve a problem,
is an open forum consisting of an arbitrary number of people with
varying levels of expertise likely to do better? Bottom line is that
it's very difficult to reconcile the views of people with experience in
very different parts of the network - apps vs. routing vs. transport -
even if they're all highly competent. It's probably even more difficult
if you have larger numbers of people and you can't assume the competence
level.
Obviously we need to solve this problem. We just need to be careful
about how we go about it if we hope to be successful.
Personally I think a forum might be a bit premature, as it would
distract various peoples' energy away from efforts to draft strawman
architectures, and instead tempt them to spend time getting in sync with
the group. Maybe we could have a BOF in Minneapolis and wait for after
that to formally organize a discussion group?
Ketih