[lisp] My Position on Vince's Proposal and Issue #22...

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw at sandstorm.net>]

Sam just asked me a question about this situation that made it clear  
that he didn't know where I stand on Vince's changes vs. additional  
changes to address issue #22, so I thought I should clarify that...

I proposed that we open a new issue #NN:  Encapsulated Control and  
Data Packets Shouldn't Use the Same Port. I think that is clearly a  
problem, and that Vince's proposal fixes it.  Although I prefer Joel's  
proposal because it resolves both issues #NN and #22, I don't have any  
major objection to Vince's proposal. So, I wouldn't object to  
including Vince's proposal in -05 and closing issue #NN.

I believe that Vince's proposal is related to, but does not actually  
address, issue #22.  This issue could be resolved by adopting Joel's  
proposal, or by other means.  So, if we include Vince's proposal in  
-05, then issue #22 should remain open and be resolved (however we end  
up deciding to resolve it) before we send the draft to the IESG for  
publication.

I am a little bit disturbed by adding a message type (Encapsulated  
Message) that we may just end-up removing later if the encapsulation  
goes away, but I don't consider that to be a blocking issue.

Margaret