Hi Tony,
You wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
>
> 17.2. Recommendation to the IETF
>
> On behalf of the routing research group, the co-chairs would
> like to recommend that the IETF pursue work in the following areas:
>
> As this is a recommendation from the chairs, I believe that the
> correct wording would be as follows:
>
> The co-chairs recommend that the IETF pursue work in the
> following areas:
>
> This conveys the appropriate message that this is a chairs' report.
I suggested the same text (msg06474):
The co-chairs recommend that the IETF pursue work in the
following areas:
> First, I’ve added some text in the Introduction:
>
> This document also includes the recommendation from the research
> group to the IETF. The group did not reach consensus on this
> recommendation, thus the recommendation reflects the decision of
> the co-chairs. The group did reach consensus that the overall
> document should be published.
>
> The last sentence is a bit presumptive at present. ;-)
The first sentence is misleading, since the Recommendation section
comes entirely from the co-chairs, not from the other participants.
> Second, please recall this text from the top of section 17:
>
> The remainder of this section describes the rationale and decision
> of the co-chairs, and does not reflect the consensus of the group.
As I indicated (msg06474), I think this sentence is fine.
> Third, I’ll point out once again that under the rules of the IRTF, as I
> understand them, the group’s process and results are at the discretion
> of the co-chairs.
That's my understanding too. Compared to an IETF WG, the co-chairs
have more of a free-wheelin' ability to shape the process and
outcomes as they wish. I think this is fine in principle, since it
enables you to make good use of whatever resources you have available
from other participants, but enables you to be more autocratic and
less bound by strict process rules if you find the participants
unable or unwilling to progress the project in the manner you think
is best.
I think this is a very difficult field technically, and the RRG
participants are all self-selected, with a great diversity of
viewpoints. My guess is that even with the very wisest choices, you
and Lixia may not have achieved consensus. I think you could have
done more to facilitate constructive debate - on goals, constraints,
commonalities and differences between the architectures and on the
merits of the different architectures themselves.
Its your choice to write a Recommendation - and your choice how to
justify it. While technically this is allowed under IRTF rules (RFC
2014) and technically the output of the group is whatever you decide
it to be, I think is is misleading to write:
This document also includes the recommendation from the research
group to the IETF.
This is a self-selected set of individuals. There's no membership or
entry / exclusion criteria. It is called a "group", but it is not
really a group. The set of active participants - those who write to
the list and/or who speak at meetings - is no-where near forming
consensus on which one or more architectures to recommend to the
IETF. As far as I know, everyone supports the creation of a final
report, with the summaries, critiques, "rebuttals", reflections etc.
I support you and Lixia writing your Recommendation text - as long as
there is no pretence that this comes from anyone but you two, as
individuals who are also the co-chairs.
> It’s very true that the decision has been made by the
> co-chairs and as such I’m trying to be very careful and emphasize that
> this is not the consensus of the group. However, it is still the output
> and result of the group.
Only in a formal and reductionist sense. It is an open question how
much of the participants' discussions, documents and proposals you
have read, understood or properly considered. As I wrote previously,
(msg06373) some of the meeting slides indicate you misunderstand
some proposals. You (Tony) have generally only discussed ILNP on the
list.
The participants have contributed to many discussions and developed a
bunch of architectures. Several documents of lasting value (I think)
to the field have been produced by the participants. The
participants generated summaries, critiques etc. and you have
collated these - including by setting length limits and by choosing
one out of the sometimes two or more contributions.
The participants did not produce any recommendation, set of goals, or
taxonomy which has achieved consensus.
The recommendation you and Lixia are writing is your work - it is not
written by any of the other participants, and so far there has been
little support for it.
So far, no-one but me (msg06219) has gone to the trouble of writing a
properly referenced, fully argued, Recommendation text. I suggest
that anyone who criticises your Recommendation should first provide
the full text of a Recommendation they would prefer.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
