On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the work goes to IRTF, the first order of business must be to > provide compelling proof or at least compelling argument that a > specific approach will have benefit in *real* networks, not hypothetic > networks, and not real topologies with a hypothetic network > architecture (ie: choice of type of equipment and build out). I think that this sets the bar just a bit too high. Again, the first thing to tackle is a clear problem statement and demonstrating that there is a community willing to take this on and see it through. As Curtis is suggesting, showing that a solution is possible would be a very good thing. Spending time arguing and finding that we are inherently fighting the laws of physics is simply not productive. However, in showing that a solution exists, we not be constrained to existing, deployed and off-the-shelf constraints. Again, the IRTF does research and must be open-minded enough to consider alternate possibilities, above and beyond what already exists today. If it implies new router architectures, new network architectures, or new optimization techniques, then that should be on the table. To be sure, they must be feasible and practical, but they need not be instantiated today. Yours in research, Tony _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
