Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique)
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Thu, 21 January 2010 16:11 UTC
Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8223A6807 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:11:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZDggfL7BXf3D for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D4A3A67F0 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id D02296BE60F; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:11:20 -0500 (EST)
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <20100121161120.D02296BE60F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:11:20 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique)
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:11:28 -0000
> From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> > The document that we are compiling is a multi-contribution survey, and > is NOT the consensus of the RG. There is nothing "official" about the > opinions represented in the document. Yes, but people never read the fine print... I had thought it not desirable for people involved in proposals to write critiques of proposals they were involved with, because I thought 'external' views would be better. However, since the only existing LISP critique has, in my view, major problems (too much focus on minor, passing problems, and not enough attention to unavoidable architectural limitations), I will prepare an alternative, and you and Lixia can pick whichever seems best. Noel
- [rrg] Multiple critiques, such as of LISP Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique) Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique) Eliot Lear
- Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique) Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique) Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique) Eliot Lear
- Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique) Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique) Robin Whittle