Hi Robin,
I saw 14 proposals. However, one is for archival purposes only: and three, in my estimation, are only for mapping systems: Are the four proposals above going to be part of the final phase?
Yes, they can participate. However, I expect that the critique of these proposals will be somewhat pointed.
I understand the proponents are to find and choose one or more people (ideally several: "collaboration of a number of people" to write the "analysis" - but that the proponents can't write or contribute to that analysis themselves. So these analyses will presumably be reasonably positive - or as positive as the proponents can persuade anyone to write!
No, it is NOT up to the proponents to coordinate the analysis. It is open to the group to do so. I would expect them to be direct, succinct and quite possibly critical.
Then there will be a 500 word "rebuttal" of the proposal. This will be solicited by Lixia and yourself. Is this to be written by one person or more? Will you ask particular people to write this - or will you accept contributions from anyone? How would you choose the people or between contributed rebuttals? Is anyone to contribute a rebuttal to the RRG list, or should we do it in private to the co-chairs?
I would expect this to come from the proponents, but that's not a strict requirement. If there are multiple submissions, we reserve the right to choose one wholly arbitrarily. Thus, it is in everyone's interest to collaborate if at all possible.
Is "rebuttal" too strong a term to use? I guess a critique could either be in terms that the proposal cannot possibly work - which is a rebuttal - or that it could work, but not as well as some other proposal. That could be tricky to do respectfully (with sufficient details, arguments and qualifications) in 500 words, since it also involves evaluating at least one other proposal which would be argued to work better.
It's what we've chosen. Comparing against another proposal is not the intent. These should be clear debates about the pros and cons of individual proposals in isolation.
Then you will solicit "another counterpoint". "Solicit" indicates to me that you won't simply ask the proponents for a "counterpoint" but that you will ask someone to write something - or accept potentially multiple counterpoints and either choose one, or encourage the authors to work together to produce a single one.
The intent is that this would come from the same folks that wrote the analysis.
Will people contribute counterpoints freely on the list, or directly to you? I guess the counterpoint is to the "rebuttal" - so it can only be written after the rebuttals are finalised.
Either mechanism is fine. Yes, these are necessarily sequential.
Are the proponents allowed to write a counterpoint? What if the proponents of the proposal don't like your choices about the counterpoint?
It's not very constructive if the proponents interfere in both the pro and con sides of the argument.
While it looks tricky, I can see some value in this set of pieces of writing. But the resulting document doesn't seem to resemble a "recommendation" to the IETF.
It's not the final step. This creates the full background. At the end we will have documented each proposal and made arguments pro and con for each of them.
Is the RRG's final recommendation going to be in a separate ID from the one with the summaries, analyses, rebuttals and counterpoints?
No, it should be the same document.
Could the recommendation be split into sections according to time-frame and/or for IPv4 and IPv6?
That depends entirely on what the recommendation ends up being.
There are divergent viewpoints about how important it is to solve the IPv4 scaling problem and how urgently we need to work on the IPv6 scaling problem. Maybe the RRG will reach consensus on this and so be able to recommend a single approach. If there is no broad consensus or this on anything else, will the final recommendation try to summarise the two or more major groups of viewpoints?
We hope for broad consensus. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
