Jari, > In the first BOF we had an experiment aspect in the charter as well. The > new charter is pure protocol specification. I am actually interested in > two outputs from the potential WG: First, the protocol specifications > themselves will be useful for the folks building Lisp prototypes. > Second, use of the protocols allows everyone to understand the > implications of this technology. Some of the effects of Lisp will also > be similar in other, alternative designs. For instance, is the delay or > loss of some initial packets a real-world problem or not? I would like > the WG to first write a list of useful experiments and then later > publish the results.
It would likely be possible to develop a list of
questions (such as the one you mention), but experimental
design should not, IMO, be a part of this WG. It is not
only that the scope of potentially "useful experiments"
is effectively unbounded (I can think of a lot of
things), but also that building the instrument
(configuration) that actually measures the outcome of the
experiment will be in many cases non-trivial.
My point is that your statement that you "would like the
WG to first write a list of useful experiments and then
later publish the results." is too broadly scoped. I see
you gave one example, the effect of delay or packet
drop...; actually we need a more tightly scoped
description even than that to build an experimental
design (e.g., effect on what, in what topology,
etc.). You get my point.
> I think the work on EID allocation guidelines for RIRs is premature at
> this stage.
That was a suggestion from a few folks on
[email protected].
Here's my question: Are you saying that it should be
removed as a work item/milestone from the charter?
> It would be cool to see a document on deployment incentives or an
> evolution plan, similar to what Dan Jen presented in the last RRG
> meeting. I don't know if you can get someone to write one.
Here's my question: Are you saying you want to add such a
document as a work item?
> The charter is missing an introductory paragraph that explains how this
> fits to the larger picture (such as the RRG). It probably also needs to
> be clearer about what's out of scope.
Ok, thanks for those hints. I'll work on that.
Thanks,
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
