I am replying to Joel about whether the report will contain a
recommendation and about the choice and nature of critiques.
Maybe I misunderstood what we are aiming for in the next month or so.
Hi Joel,
You wrote, in a different order:
> PS: I would suggest looking at the introduction (the abstract needs
> to be updated) of the most recent document.
OK - I hadn't read this:
It is commonly recognized that the Internet routing and
addressing architecture is facing challenges in scalability,
multi-homing, and inter-domain traffic engineering. This
document reports the Routing Research Group's preliminary
findings from its efforts towards developing a recommendation
for a scalable routing architecture.
This document is a work in progress.
Perhaps I missed something. I was under the impression that the RRG
was to provide a recommendation to the IETF, and that this March was
the deadline. The original deadline, to the best of my knowledge,
was March 2009 but was extended - I assumed for a year.
Lixia and Tony, can you clarify this?
If the RRG is not going to recommend anything in this next report,
then that's fine. Then I understand that the report will be a survey
of the proposals - and I think the format of Summary, Critique,
"Rebuttal" (perhaps too strong a term?) and Reflection is a good one.
But here is an exchange between Tony and myself on 2009-12-25 which
makes me think that this report will contain the recommendation.
What is the timeframe for this? I had assumed it would be in the
version we create in early March:
RW>> But the resulting document doesn't seem to resemble a
>> "recommendation" to the IETF.
TL> 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.
> 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.
Sure, but if two or more people contribute critiques, which are
either incompatible to a significant extent or which cover different
concerns, then rather than choose a single one arbitrarily, why not
include them both?
At 500 words each, they are not particularly long.
> 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.
So you suggest we should present the IETF with a bunch of proposals
on a platter, with critiques which may be an arbitrarily chosen
subset of those generated, and no recommendation?
Tony wrote clearly of a recommendation just over a month ago.
> 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.)
OK - this is fine if there everyone or most people are happy with the
text.
If my LISP critique is the one that stays in the report, than that
will make me happy, but not as happy as if Noel's critique was
included too. I think Noel wants both included.
Likewise, I think Javier's critique of Name Based Sockets is not at
all adequate if it is the only critique to be included. I am keen
for mine (still to be finalised) to be included too.
I would be perfectly happy for multiple critiques of Ivip to be included.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
