Hi Robin,
I see that a number of people have responded to this msg. I'll just
chip in a few more sentences here and there.
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?
As I mentioned in the prev msg: we would like to summarize all the
issues with each proposal into one critique. I understand that
agreement some times is difficult (hence rough consensus needed).
......
My page on some of these constraints:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/
has been fine-tuned as a result of
considerable RRG discussion. As far as I
know no-one objects to this attempt to
express the real constraints we are
operating within. Quite a few people
expressed their support for this attempt -
though of course we all wish there were no
such constraints.
I suggest that we work on a version of this
to be included in the RRG Report, which
the co-chairs will hopefully be able able
to find rough consensus support for.
Looks like there is no consensus for this proposal.
ANyone can always submit their work as individual draft, perhaps you
can even working with the few people that share your views.
Could the Report include a section near
the front classifying the proposals into
various groups?
will try to look into this.
......
RFCs are composed entirely of recycled electrons.
this is very true. However I think there is an important bottleneck:
people's time and effort, which are very limited.
......
My LISP critique is in the current draft of the Report:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-04
and Noel Chiappa's:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05747.html
isn't, simply because I wrote mine before Noel wrote his.
I don't want Noel's critique to displace mine, nor mine to displace
his. I think they are both perfectly good critiques and there is
only a small amount of overlap.
I want Noel's critique included in the Report. Likewise any other
similarly thoughtful critique of LISP or any other proposal.
it is purely my fault -- I agreed to look over both and find a
solution here last weekend; will get it done this weekend.
.....
The RRG Report needs to be adopted by consensus,
rough consensus.
and I won't fully
support a final version which I think is missing a significant
critique such as Noel's or my (not yet finalised) critique of Name
Based Sockets.
Similarly, Javier's critique of Name Based Sockets is in the current
draft and mine is not, simply because Javier wrote his first.
I do not want my critique to displace Javier's. As far as I know, he
doesn't want to exclude mine from the Report either. I don't want to
have to try to jam my concerns into a single piece of text which
Javier would also be happy with. There is a diversity of opinion on
what needs to be critiqued in each proposal - and there's no point in
trying to force consensus or give the appearance of consensus when
none exists.
Robin, I would like to clarify the following:
- the reason one writes critiques is not to associate one's name to
it, but to explain the issues. Lets stop talking about "my critique"
vs "your critique", and start talking about the actual issues
themselves.
- if we focus on issues: we can either resolve the diversity of
opinions, or otherwise incorporate them if that deems beneficial to
the community.
......
You and Tony have already changed your plan by accepting a proposal
very late - RANGER. No-one seems to object to this.
there was a confusion somewhere that led to the RANGER delay. and
since we want to document all existing proposals, in case of doubt, it
is better to fall on the inclusive side.
You have also
accepted five proposals which are not actually proper scalable
routing proposals:
Evolution - Aggregation with Increasing Scopes
This does not claim to solve the scaling problem - it is
a number of suggestions for reconfiguring routers to achieve
benefits which are very slight compared to the scaling
benefits we need, but which may prove valuable while not
getting in the way of a proper solution.
Enhanced Efficiency of Mapping Distribution Protocols ...
In the submission (msg05540) K. Sriram noted that this was
intended for archival purposes:
"I do not intend it to be a contribution for the mainstream
set of proposals for a solution for scalability. . . .
My main intent in submitting this proposal/document is for
archival value."
2-phased mapping
Layered Mapping System (LMS)
Compact routing in locator identifier mapping system
As with "Enhanced Efficiency ..." these three are for mapping
systems only, not full proposals.
I am not opposed to the inclusion of these five which were submitted
despite Tony noting twice (msg05513, msg05496) that a mapping system
alone is not a complete solution.
I don't understand how you could be so relaxed about space concerns
when including these five, and then be so concerned about space as to
disallow the inclusion of multiple critiques for those complete
proposals which people are most concerned about.
(my own opinion) we want critiques to identify issues with a proposal,
I see it is most beneficial to the community to have all the issues
(including different views) about a proposal in one place.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
