Hi Robin, > OK - but where have you encouraged debate, or contributed to it by > arguing for your own preferred position?
Well Robin, I have to admit, I've been far less prolific than you have been. However, for the last three years, I've been plugging away for an enlightened debate about the solution space. No takers. I've argued for my position in the past and been slammed with ~"that can't possibly work"~ > I understand you support > ILNP (CEE, Locator / Identity Separation) - which are only practical > for IPv6. I am not sure what you want for IPv4. I want nothing. IPv4 is done. Over. Cooked. Fully toast. It will either enter a black market where we deaggregate and no proposal will help, or we shift to v6 and v4 is irrelevant. In either case, we're not in time to do anything significant for v4. And we still need a v6 solution, that's clearly higher priority. >>>> What I expect will happen will look like: >>>> >>>> - Some initial discussion >>>> - Presentation of the recommendation >>>> - Feedback afterwards >>> >>> OK - I understand from this you have no clear idea of what will happen. >> >> That's as clear as I can make it. What were you hoping for? > > Since you are one of the co-chairs and you are urging us - indeed > expecting us - by so-far unspecified methods, to develop and in some > way be happy with a single-architecture Recommendation in the next 19 > days, I was hoping you would be able to give us more guidance about > how to debate this, including leading by example: by arguing in > detail for your own preferred outcomes. Lixia has done this for her > AIS (Evolution) proposal. I'm not expecting anyone to develop a recommendation. I'm not expecting anyone to be happy with it. > You haven't yet stated when you and Lixia intend to finalise the text > of the RRG Report, at which point you will choose what, if anything, > goes in the Recommendation section. Nor have you explained how you > will choose the text, or guide the mailing list or meeting discussions. We will present the results at our next meeting. After that, we will polish the text and then publish the final document. We will certainly be happy to take input on the text, but we will not promise to incorporate any of it. > Do you intend to finalise the Recommendation during the meeting, or > afterwards? If the former, than I am concerned that those not at the > meeting will be at a disadvantage through not being able to be > express our arguments as directly as those who can attend. If the > latter, do you have any plans for how long after the meeting you will > finalise the text? Again, finalizing the text will be later. Yes, regardless, you're at a disadvantage being remote. Sorry, but the IRTF (unlike the IETF) has no constraints about the mailing list being the primary mode of operation. Nor are there requirements for us to do anything to support remote participation. We do try to, but that's mostly thanks to co-location with IETF. > This is a statement about the past. If this continues for the next > few weeks, then there will be no large enough subset of active RRG > participants with a compatible opinion to form anything like > consensus. But I doubt that everyone would hold to their own > proposals in the context of a detailed, constructive, debate - a > debate we are yet to have. Again, we've been trying to have that debate for three years. > OK - but if you and Lixia include text as a "Recommendation" without > a process which tests support for it - or if there is such a test and > it only gets minority support - then the "Recommendation" won't have > much value or be taken particularly seriously by the IESG or anyone else. Again, the IRTF is not bound by a consensus process. In the preceding years where we've tried to drive consensus, we've gotten no response. We're left making a call without consensus. If that means that it doesn't have broad support, well, so be it. We committed to a deliverable and we're going to see it through. > I don't recall you or Lixia write anything about what various groups > of people have in common and where they differ. That's because we would never reach consensus on what _that_ text would be either. > Sure - but if that is the best we can do, then surely it would be > better to produce a coherent report on the various positions which > people have adopted, with the arguments each group advances in > support of their position, and the arguments they provide against the > positions of others. Done. > To pretend that the situation involved more agreement than it really > does would be a worse failure. No one is claiming agreement. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
