Architectures and frameworks (Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks) (l2vpn)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Architectures and frameworks (Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks) (l2vpn)

To: Ping Pan <pingpan at cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Architectures and frameworks (Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks) (l2vpn)
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:00:47 +0200
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <3EF0A9AE.7000202@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <200306181609.JAA15366@gra.isi.edu> <3EF0A9AE.7000202@cs.columbia.edu>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

--On onsdag, juni 18, 2003 11:04:30 -0700 Ping Pan <pingpan at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

As for IESG, the problem is not about having a new IETF WG. Rather, why
are we spending so much time and energy on standardization? How many
times are people going to write architecture and framework RFC's?


until they learn to express their architectures and frameworks concisely?

in many cases, I think the important parts of an architecture or framework could be expressed in four pages. But most architecture and framework documents go on for fifty pages.

why?

References:
- Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)
  - From: Bob Braden
- Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)
  - From: Ping Pan

Prev by Date: Re: NATs are NOT Firewalls
Next by Date: Re: myth of the great transition
Previous by thread: Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)
Next by thread: Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Architectures and frameworks (Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks) (l2vpn)

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.