> From: "George, Wes E [NTK]" <wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com>
> those who came up with proposals were so convinced that their idea was
> the right one ... in the belief that someone is only against the idea
> because they don't understand it well enough, or were simply unwilling
> to compromise
No, there are other explanations, such as 'what spoken or unspoken
assumptions about the environment, both current and future, are people
making'. The thing is that one probably can't say a priori, or necessarily
even provide emperical evidence a priori, that people's views on such
important factors are correct or incorrect.
E.g. Ran and I have different models of how easy it will be to upgrade hosts,
and probably also how necessary it is for initial deployers to get some bang
for their buck (especially when interacting with entities on the other end
have not yet deployed the upgrade). Peoples views on things like that might
bias them, say, towards a solution which is uglier (architecturally), but
more tuned to the existence of lots of unmodified devices.
> Option 2/3 is a no-op, because not only would there be a Tony/Lixia doc,
> there would be an IVIP doc, and there would be a [LISP] doc, and an
> IRON-RANGER doc, etc, etc.
> ...
> the solution to the lack of consensus problem isn't to write MORE reams
> of text in support of individual proposals as in option 2/3 above
No, that is not the intention of option 3. The intention of 3 is that there be
_two_ documents: the first being an RRG 'proposals overview' document which is
the existing overview/criticism/rebuttal groups for each of the proposals, and
the second being an individual document which is the co-chairs recommendation
document.
This would not involve the writing of _any_ extra text (OK, maybe a tiny bit
of header boilerplate for the second document). But none of the proposers would
be writing anything extra.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
