I am not happy either with how things are handled.
Some suggestion:
It is great that every one my initiate a new subject line (thread). But:
Threads pop up ... and disappear at any point in time. Without any fixed result.
Imho there should be individual threads as well as official threads (similar to
individual and ietf- drafts). The official threads should have a clear focus
and should also aim for a final result that we can refer to just like to RFCs.
And of course, every one may propose an official thread, but they should be
initiated and managed by the chairs.
So far arguments are just shooted into the blue.
I am most critical versus the Anaheim decisisons too. But the looser isn't me
(TARA), the looser will be the RRG by wasting 6 more years.
A second thing: We should respect each other.
Heiner
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Robin Whittle <r...@firstpr.com.au>
An: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Verschickt: Mo., 19. Apr. 2010, 4:32
Thema: [rrg] DIY Recommendations
Short version: RRG participants should contribute to the debate by
having a go at writing their own preferred goals and
Recommendation and/or by critiquing other people's
attempts to do so.
Med Boucadair (msg06442) and Wes George (msg06443) both expressed a
desire for the co-chairs to substantiate their proposed
Recommendation. I imagine most RRG participants and everyone who
reads the final Recommendation would have the same expectation.
Yet, after 6457 messages, I am the only RRG participant to attempt to
write a Recommendation with such substantiation - with a defined set
of goals and analysis of all the proposals.
If Lixia and Tony produce no such clarification of their goals and/or
no substantiation of their choices, their Recommendation will
no-doubt be criticised and/or ignored.
Whatever substantiation they do provide will no-doubt fail to satisfy
many RRG participants.
I think RRG participants could aid the debate, and help the
co-chairs, by writing their own DIY Recommendations to the list.
Even if each attempt is incomplete - such as only referring to a
subset of the proposals - as long as it contains arguments for or
against at least some proposals, together with an explicit statement
of the goals with supporting arguments for these, then this would
further the debate and give the co-chairs something to consider as
they write their text.
There are major questions regarding goals:
IPv4 vs. IPv6. One or the other first, or not bother with IPv4?
Coping with the continued (highly constrained) rate of growth in
multihomed end-user networks vs. allowing a much greater rate of
growth (to better match the needs of end-user networks) in a
scalable manner.
Having the architectural enhancement directly facilitate mobility
or not.
Core-Edge Elimination (Locator / Identity) vs, Core-Edge
Elimination vs. other kinds of architecture or work-arounds.
My 8 March attempt to do this is here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html
but please see recent messages for the latest IRON-RANGER developments.
I guess most RRG participants have some opinion on what should be
recommended. Since everyone expects the co-chairs to Get It Right, I
think more people should attempt what they expect the co-chairs to
do: define goals, evaluate proposals, and make choices.
Even if an RRG participant hasn't got a clear idea of what to
recommend, or hasn't read all the proposals, I think they could
contribute to the debate by reading my msg06219 and writing to the
list what they do or don't like about it - and why.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
