Dimitri,
section 3.10 of <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01> 3.10. Deployability Since solutions that are not deployable are simply academic exercises, solutions are required to be deployable from a technical perspective. Furthermore, given the extensive deployed base of today's Internet, a solution is required to be incrementallydeployable.--> i would state that the solution should not be constrained by which system (host vs network) will require changes/updates (it may be both at the end) as long as fulfilling the incremental deployability design goal.
I would agree. That's already what I said in Prague and after my presentation most attendees seemed to agree.
http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications/reconsidering-internet-routing-archit
the real question is: incremental does not necessarily mean impact free even if a solution initially targets only host or network updates - which is the open question faced with LISP
I agree. Increamental deployability is not a criteria which is easy to quantify...
Olivier -- http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be , Universite catholique de Louvain, Belgium -- to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg