At 03:20 PM 5/26/2006, Alper Yegin wrote:
> So far evaluations done by the broader
> community seem to be concluding that PANA is in fact complex and not
> easily deployable.
Who would that community be?
I have heard the complexity issue from you and few others multiple times,
but there has never been a justification to this claim.
Alper,
It's clear now that PANA documents as written are found to be complex
and with gaps by folks who have spent the time to review them during
the IETF LC process. So, whereas there is consensus at WG level as
determined by Raj and you to forward the documents to the IESG, at
the IETF LC level, I see that there is no broad consensus as I
understand the word rough consensus.
We are not feeding on complexity, we are not married to it either. If you
can tell us what parts we can simplify, the whole community would be
grateful to you.
I did a review of PANA-IPsec and had several questions and comments,
but then of course the discussion moved to what does PANA buy more
than say EAP over IKEv2 and I didn't have a reasonable answer.
Further, my recollection is that several emails in this thread have
already listed things PANA might do away with to reduce the
complexity (e.g., one of Jari's emails).
regards,
Lakshminath
Please describe where you see unnecessary complexity, and suggest remedies.
Thanks.
Alper
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf