Hi k, Regarding systematic analysis of the proposals, I will soon be working on two IDs for this purpose. I hope people will support, constructively criticise or contribute to these IDs as co-authors.
One will look at the Core-Edge Elimination (CEE) proposals: GLI-Split ILNP Name Based Sockets Name Overlay (NOL) RANGI I haven't yet read the last two, but my impression is that they are CEE. I need to finish writing my understanding of GLI-Split and then read these two before I can begin this ID. This will include my understanding of: What "CEE" and "CES" means. The history of the CEE and CES terms. The various naming models these proposals involve - all involve "Locator/Identifier Separation" - and how these differ from the current 2 level IP naming structure. My arguments about why it is best to retain the current naming model. I will probably mention GSE as well, although it is not an RRG proposal. The other will look at the Core-Edge Separation (CES) proposals: IRON-RANGER Ivip LISP TIDR I will probably mention APT as well. A note below my signature explains on why I am concentrating on these proposals. Regarding: CES & CEE: GLI-Split; GSE, Six/One Router; 2008 sep./elim. paper http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06009.html you wrote: > thanks for these "Comparison charts of: > CES: LISP-ALT/NERD, APT, Ivip, TRRP, TIDR, > IRON-RANGER and Six/One Router. > CEE: GSE, GLI-Split, ILNP, Name-Based Sockets." > > two process questions: > (1) is there any plan for the RRG recommendation to include a more > complete version of such a matrix chart of proposals vs > rrg-documented design goals, with a pointer to enough explanation > of how well the proposal meets the design goal, or outstanding > complications? your charts are the first step i've seen in > this direction, but a more comprehensive comparison chart > would be incredibly useful. I think the RRG Report should have systematic analysis like this. Perhaps the co-chairs or multiple people in the RRG can write this, or adapt something from the IDs I am about to write. > (2) i understand such a chart is likely blocked on more meat > filled in on critiques/rebuttal/counterpoints for each > proposal. has the wg considered asking all proposal submitters > to submit critiques of at least three (or some N) other > proposals, including estimating the corresponding lines of > a feature comparison matrix? I think this is the first such suggestion. AFAIK there's no way the co-chairs or the RRG itself can require anyone to do anything. I entirely support your suggestion that anyone who submitted a proposal should write critiques for multiple other proposals. I know people are busy and all, but if someone puts a proposal to the RRG, then it is because they believe it has merit above all other proposals. (There are exceptions, such as K. Sriram's and colleagues' "Enhanced Efficiency" proposal, which was submitted for archival purposes. Also, some proponents have agreed with critiques that their proposal can't be the best solution.) As a service to others - including especially RRG members who the proponents seek the support of - I think proponents should write critiques of the prominent proposals which compete with their own. For instance, why hasn't Ran Atkinson (or anyone else who supports ILNP - such as Tony Li, I think) contributed to the list: 1 - What is wrong with other CEE proposals: GLI-Split, Name Based Sockets, Name Overlay (NOL) and RANGI. 2 - What is wrong with CES proposals in general, or in particular. 3 - Why the ILNP naming model is superior to that of any other CEE architecture and to the current IP naming model, which is supported by all CES architectures. Likewise, why haven't the GLI-Split people argued why their approach is superior to all CES architectures and to the competing CEE architectures? Why haven't the LISP folks written anything in detail about Ivip. I have written plenty of detailed, constructive, material about LISP. Now's the time for them to return the favour. It is a favour - am not being at all ironic or facetious. I think someone in the LISP team - and ideally Fred Templin (IRON Ranger) should write to the list about why none of the CEE architectures should be adopted. Also, why don't the CEE proponents and supporters respond to this: Today's "IP addr. = ID = Loc" naming model should be retained http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05864.html which is a fundamental critique of all CEE architectures and the widely popular view (I think, within the RRG) that a "Locator/Identifier Separation" naming model is superior to the current IPv4/6 model in which the IP address plays both the Locator and Identifier roles. Perhaps you could make a start by writing something about any of the above. > this suggestion is based on the imbalance in the > current draft between ideas-submitted and > ideas-rigorously-evaluated. i suspect the IETF > needs more of the latter, which it doesn't look > like natural WG forces are going to produce. I agree. - Robin Here are the other proposals and why I am not concentrating on them. 2 Phased Mapping Enhanced Efficiency LMS Mapping system based on compact routing These ones are only for mapping systems - and are not complete proposals. Two other proposals which I think are neither CEE or CES architectures. AIS - Aggregation with Increasing Scopes If I have time and get answers to my questions (msg05862) I hope to understand this enough to write a critique. But my current impression of this is that it could not be as good a solution as LISP or Ivip. hIPv4 The original hIPv4 proposal is impractical. I am discussing Patrick Frejborg's 04 revision at present. I think this is interesting but at present I can't see how it could work. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg