The main thrust of this email seems to assume a fact not in evidence.
The plan described by the chairs does not envision a document providing
complete coverage of all ideas presented to the RRG< nor does it
describe providing a complete and thorough analysis of each idea.
rather, it provides a survey of the ideas, with some commentary.
Personally, I can not foresee any process which would come to an actual
agreement on a recommendation from the RRG, and therefore conclude that
the survey is probably the most effective outcome we can achieve as a
community.
I will note in passing that it is quite rare in IETF or IRTF documents
to attribute authorship of particular portions. (There are exceptions
when the WG wishes to acknowledge a particular contribution of
particular value that comes from a single person, but even that is done
sparsely.)
Yours,
Joel
PS: I would suggest looking at the introduction (the abstract needs to
be updated) of the most recent document.
Robin Whittle wrote:
Short version: What objections are there to having two or more
well written, generally non-overlapping, ~500
word critiques for a proposal if the authors can't
figure out a way to express all their concerns
in a single ~500 word piece?
Also, would there be any problem in attributing
authorship of the one or more critiques?
I understand the plan for Summary, Critique,
"Rebuttal" and Reflection. What is the plan for
debate and hopefully achieving rough consensus (or
better than rough) support for a choice of a
single proposal (or maybe two or more?) to
recommend to the IETF?
The options for altering the architecture to
achieve scalable routing and addressing are
tightly bounded by the installed base and by
the need for widespread voluntary adoption.
My page on some of these constraints:
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
