Brian,
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
actually less complex than Scenario O.
Also, I was surprised to find that of the two timelines in the writeups,
the one for Scenario C was the shorter one. (That may reflect the writers'
degree of optimism, however!)
So the outcome is not settled in my mind yet.
I'd like your comments on why you find Scenario O simpler, and VERY much
like your comments on where the details of Scenario O need "hacking", if
that's the conclusion of the community.
Harald
--On 21. september 2004 11:10 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Thanks, to you and the various authors, for this effort
and for reducing the choice to a binary one.
To me, this clarifies that it's a one-horse race. I just can't
see any argument for the extra complexity, overhead cost, and
risk of Scenario C.
Obviously we would need to hack at the details of Scenario O,
but for me there is no doubt that it's the way to go.
(My only regret is that Scenario O text doesn't include a short
risk analysis, like Sceanrio C.)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf