Short version: I think we need another two weeks to write a proper set of critiques. I think writing the "rebuttals" and the "reflections" won't take long - maybe a week to do both.
We are deciding how to advise the IETF on the best way to develop a once in several decades upgrade on the most widely used, entrenched, IT system in the world. No-one knows how much is invested in routers and the, Internet aspects of host OSes applications, but it is clearly in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. The upgrade has to last for decades, be performed while it is running and be widely adopted on a purely voluntary basis. (Also, I think, the upgrade needs to support billions of mobile hosts - which is surely the future of the devices currently known as "cellphones". I think this could best be done via global mobility of their address space, no matter what access network they are connected to.) With two days to go, this "critique" phase of the RRG's work has only produced results for 2 of 16 proposals. We need more time. Hi Lixia and Tony, I support the late inclusion of Fred Templin's RANGER core-edge separation proposal. I would like to contribute to a critique, but there's no way I can do this in the next week or so. It is a well-documented architecture so there is a lot of material to read. I would like you to consider a significant extension of the deadline for the critique phase of this process - to Monday 1st February. I would be suggesting this anyway, but now we have one more, extensively documented and well-researched proposal to read and consider. Further to msg05670, here is my understanding of the Critique process for each of the now 16 proposals: One or more people write a critique and post it to the list. Other people may try to contribute to that critique (via the list or privately) and the original author(s) may or may not accept such alterations to their satisfaction. So updated versions of the original draft of the critique may be posted to the list. Multiple critiques from multiple people or groups of people may be posted to the list in this manner, being revised by their authors - and I guess copied in part to be the basis of other critiques. At deadline, if there are two or more competing critiques which still have support, then Lixia and Tony will choose one. The critiques are a tricky thing. Some of people (me at least) want to contribute to multiple critiques, so we have a lot of work to do by the deadline. Since various people may want to contribute to the one critique, we need to perform autodiscovery and then work together. Autodiscovery really needs to be done on-list with an announcement of intention to contribute to a critique. Otherwise how could anyone know who to work with? My understanding is that the deadline is Monday 18th January (Lixia's message msg05648). Due to misunderstandings of the original instructions (msg05544, with a 5th January deadline) - which I misunderstood - two proposals have had an "analysis" (now "critique" msg05664) written by the proponents: Name Based Sockets and Name Overlay Service. But critiques need to be critical and written by someone other than the proponents. Here's my understanding of the state of the critiques: ILNP http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05539.html Ran Atkinson Joel Halpern and Yakov Rekhter wrote a critique (msg05624). I support their critique but in the future I may have other things to mention about the need for DNS lookups to achieve equivalent certainty to today's protocols that the initial response packet really goes to the host which the request supposedly was sent by. I need more time to work on this and hope to do it by the time of the final choice discussion. LISP http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05503.html Vince Fuller, Dino Farrinacci, David Meyer and Darrel Lewis. I announced I would contribute to a critique of LISP. So far no-one has indicated that they would also contribute. TIDR http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05538.html Juan Jose Adan I announced I would contribute to a critique of TIDR. So far no-one has indicated that they would also contribute. However, Mohamed Boucadair has sent Juanjo and I a copy of the TIDR ID with his extensive thoughtful comments. I hope that he or Juanjo will post it to the RRG list as an attachment to contribute to the RRG discussion of TIDR. Name Based Sockets http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05543.html Christian Vogt I announced I would contribute to a critique of Name Based Sockets. So far no-one has indicated that they would also contribute. Ivip http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05533.html Robin Whittle Christian Vogt wrote to me offering to coordinate a critique of Ivip - which I very much appreciate. I suggested he announce this on the list. I think the choice of coordinator should be made by whoever wants to contribute. I think it is vital that the LISP folks state their objections to the other core-edge separation proposals, including Ivip, TIDR and now RANGER. RANGER http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05665.html Fred Templin I have offered to contribute to a critique, but not by the the current deadline. To date, only 2 of 15 proposals have critiques. For a further 4 proposals, someone (only me so far) has announced their intention to contribute to a critique. As far as I know, there has been no announcement that anyone is interested in writing critiques for the following 9 contributions. Those marked * are the ones, which in my opinion (msg05562) do not constitute actual proposals for the scalable routing problem. Nonetheless, they are part of the process and need critiques (msg05564). * 2-phased mapping for Internet core/edge split schemes http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05536.html Wei Zhang * Aggregation with Increasing Scopes: An Evolutionary Path Towards Global Routing Scalability http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05542.html Dan Jen, Dan Massey, Robert Raszuk, Lan Wang, Xiaohu Xu, Beichuan Zhang and Lixia Zhang. * Enhanced Efficiency of Mapping Distribution Protocols in Map-and-Encap Schemes http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05540.html K. Sriram, Young-Tak Kim, and Doug Montgomery Global Locator, Local Locator, and Identifier Split (GLI-Split) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05537.html Michael Menth, Matthias Hartmann and Dominik Klein hIPv4 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05529.html Patrick Frejborg * Layered Mapping System http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05534.html Sun Letong, YinXia, Wang ZhiLiang, Wu Jianping * Mapping system based on compact routing http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05519.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05531.html Hannu Flinck Name overlay (NOL) service for scalable Internet routing http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05532.html Yangyang Wang RANGI http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05505.html Xiaohu XU Here are some arguments for a deadline extension, such as to Monday 1 February. In your original deadline (msg05544), now extended twice to Monday 18 January seems to have been based on an underestimate of how long it would take people to read proposals, nominate themselves on the list and actually write and refine the critiques. Only Joel Halpern and Yakov Rekhter were able to write a critique by the first revision of the deadline (msg05556). There are four scalable routing proposals so far with no-one nominating to write a critique: GLI, hIPv4, NOL and RANGI. I plan to write critiques of these in time to contribute to the RRG's final choice discussion - but not in the next week or so. My first priority is to make some improvement to Ivip's fast push mapping system, to respond on list to Mohamed Boucadair's comments on Ivip. Then I am going to contribute to critiques of TIDR, LISP, Name Based Sockets and RANGER. We need more time for people to write a proper set of critiques. I recall your initial timetable was for 14 days between stages - 14 days for the proponents to write a "rebuttal" of the critique, and then 14 days for people other than the proponents (presumably those who wrote the critique) to write a "reflection". I think this is a good process, but that you need to give us more time for the critique phase. I can't speak for other proponents, but it won't take me 14 days to write a 500 word "rebuttal" of the critique Christian Vogt and hopefully others will write for Ivip. (Not that my response will necessarily be a simple rebuttal.) The "rebuttal" stage is an entirely parallel process, since each proponent only has to write one. Some folks want to contribute to multiple critiques, which is a serial process. Also, critiques involve reading a potentially large body of material which we are not familiar with and then carefully crafting a respectful and well-informed critique in only 500 words. Ideally, this will also involve working with other contributors and checking with the proponents that we haven't misunderstood something. The proponents, when responding to the chosen critique, already know their proposal inside out and are responding to only 500 words, which they have seen in various drafts on the list prior to the deadline. I don't think it will take the authors of the critique - and anyone else who has something to say - 14 days to write a "reflection". They have already read the proposals and are only responding to 500 words. I think it will only take a week or so to do both the "rebuttal" and "reflection" stages. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg