Hi Fred,
You wrote:
>> I am trying to prompt people into actually debating proposals, rather
>> than just talking about their own. Point 1 doesn't include people
>> arguing why Ivip is the best choice, but I would be happy for someone
>> to do so.
>
> I think part of the problem is that with a few exceptions
> (such as yourself) those who have their own proposals may
> be so deeply engrossed in understanding and expressing what
> they are trying to accomplish that it is impossible to bring
> our heads up above water long enough to give a deeper
> consideration for other proposals. Or maybe I am just
> speaking for myself...
This is the problem I am trying to overcome. As noted by k claffy
and Eliot Lear:
feature comparison chart, conscripted peer review ?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06024.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06044.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06054.html
the RRG suffers from lack of critiques of proposals. k claffy
suggested everyone who wrote a proposal be required to critique three
or so others. Eliot concurred:
I think this is a great (and necessary) idea to give authority to
the work people are doing.
I learn a great amount by reading and discussing other proposals.
Some of the most significant improvements to Ivip arose when I was
trying to understand or improve on someone-else's proposal. These
were all proposals I didn't think would work - but I still learnt
about scalable routing by reading and discussing them, and I was
prompted into thinking things which turned out to be improvements to
Ivip where I never thought there was a need for improvement.
The modified header forwarding stuff arose when I was discussing
Six/One Router, though there's no such thing in Six/One Router.
The DRTM idea - which overcomes some big objections to Ivip - came
from imagining an improvement to a recent proposal (I think it was
Compact Routing), then thinking it would be a possible improvement to
LISP and only then developing it further and seeing it would be an
improvement to Ivip. There is absolutely nothing of DRTM in whatever
proposal I was writing about - but writing prompted a line of
thinking which turned out to be productive.
Of course I learn basic things about scalable routing from discussing
other proposals - especially discussing things with you.
Now's the time to quote Brian Eno (Backwater 1977) and his critique
of the straight-line, overly self-focused, approach you mentioned:
But if you study the logistics
And heuristics of the mystics
You will find that their minds rarely move in a line
So it's much more realistic
To abandon such ballistics
And resign to be trapped on a leaf in the vine.
I learnt a bunch of stuff reading and discussing the 14 other
proposals even though I _knew_ none of them were as good as Ivip.
I think others would have the same experience - and that this would
be a better way of improving their proposal than by working on it in
isolation.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
