My conclusion is that rather than focussing on simple, express, or any other solution, the focus, as with the prime purpose of the "simple" work has to be on the problem. We do not have a wide understanding of what works, what does not work, and why. We need to have the public discussion (face to face) of this in order to get the community to see past Van's argument at the Florida plenary.I tend to agree with Joel's suggestion here.Yes, simple and express can be used as examples of other approaches. In particular certain of the properties of those solutions (such as alternative group identification) need to be strongly highlighted.&nbs p; But the BoF / WG should not be about the solutions.
We already have ISPs input on certain issues and requirement. It would be productive to discuss based on the requirement (with some due thought to long term needs, if possible) what is already available and what is still missing, and how to address the remaining problems. It's easier to be objective if we don't focus on the individual protocols itself.
What we might end up eventually is a list of 'to do' which can be realized in existing protocols in the way that Dave Oran suggested. If we can't decide on certain issues like bi-directional trees, perhaps we could let the market decide.
cheers,
cyl