On 24 Nov 2008, at 23:30, Robin Whittle wrote: % Ran rejects my critiques but doesn't respond % to them with detailed explanations.
All, Robin's critiques are based on two items. 1) Robin objects to any host stack changes, which is a position held by some portion of the RG. 2) Robin either hasn't read or doesn't understand (I can't tell which) the set of sundry ILNP documents -- including the published peer-reviewed research papers. Detailed responses aren't sensible (respectively) because: 1) Opinions vary within the RG on whether host stack changes are reasonable. That issue is one of opinion, rather than provable math/science. 2) Robin keeps making incorrect assumptions about ILNP and then criticises *something other than ILNP* based on his private incorrect assumptions, and then mislabels it as ILNP criticism. - - - - - - Robin, % why isn't ILNP simply a modified stack, with no % requirement for any changes to applications? In fact, I've repeatedly told you that it IS simply a modified stack with no *requirement* for any changes to applications or to APIs. Further, I have repeatedly said that the API enhancement ideas are *orthogonal* to any specific proposal before the Routing RG, would be equally applicable to any proposal, and would be applicable even if no protocol changes happened in future. % It is not right to criticise me for not being able % to read your mind, or imagine how you might design something. I've several times suggested you go read the research literature, which suggestions you seem to have ignored. If and when you do that, you might gain a more complete understanding. In an IRTF RG, participants are expected to read the relevant research literature. This is not an IETF WG, it is an IRTF RG, so IRTF customs and expectations apply. % If you want me to consider your ILNP proposal seriously, ... I've repeatedly said that ILNP is a *research project*, that the research predates the current Routing RG focua, and that I don't really care whether the Routing RG endorses it or not. Instead, like many researchers, my goal is simply to try to put some ideas in front of folks in the hopes of stimulating further ideas in other folks' heads. Other folks here, for example JNC, operate in a similar mode. I find such notes, from anyone, helpful, whether or not I might initially agree with all of the concepts/ideas put forth. Fundamentally, your main complaint is that ILNP requires host stack changes. The *entire* mailing list understands that you object to any host stack changes. Repeating it over and over (as you have been doing) really isn't helpful. People already know that is your position. And taking that position is fine; some folks agree with you; some disagree; others haven't taken a firm stance yet. If you were going to persuade some folks (or have persuaded some folks), then likely that would be done (or has been done) by your first note to that effect. The repetition is just wasted list bandwidth. As I said last time, please feel free to ignore ILNP if it improves your happiness or lets you spend your time on matters you consider more important. Oh, and I have talked with Tony about his "process" note. He has told me point blank that is was NOT directed either at me or my notes to the RRG list. Cheers, Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
