Dave Crocker wrote:
I would find it particularly helpful to have a concise statement from
someone who says that PANA will not work. Cannot be implemented
(properly) by virtue of technical errors or documentation too
confusing to understand. Or cannot be deployed and used, by virtue of
administrative complexity or, again, documentation too confusing to
understand.
The fact that the IETF is supposed to be based on "Rough consensus and
running code" is completely being missed here. Currently there are
multiple interoperable implementation of the protocol in addition to
there existing an open-source implementation as well.
The fact that several years of peoples work and effort has gone into
this is being ignored by claims that I find quite have a vested
interest.
Absent this, I will ask why it is productive to note that the emperor
is pursuing an idiosynchratic sartorial style?
I would also expect to hear a response to this. I would also like to
ask if the people who claim to be unable to understand the scenarios
where PANA can be applied have attended a PANA WG meeting or have
cared to ask these questions on the ML.
d/
-Raj
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf