On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Robin Whittle <[email protected]> wrote:
> The list of constraints due to the need for voluntary adoption is at:
>
> http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/
Hi Robin,
I like where you're going with this list.
I'd suggest a change to point 6. You have:
6 - The solution must be compatible with all
existing DFZ routers. (Unless it can be shown
that all DFZ routers can be upgraded - such as
via a software update - by the time of
introduction.)
First, I'd drop the "unless." There really is no "unless" here. We've
demonstrated rather conclusively that in today's Internet it is highly
impractical to try to get the 31,000 individual organizations who
compose the DFZ to deploy configuration changes ahead of that
individual organization's direct use for the change.
Then I'd change it to something like:
6 - The solution must function compatibly with existing DFZ router deployments.
Asking them to forklift their hardware is bad but they're going to do
that on a 3 to 5 year cycle anyway. Where the effort falls apart is
asking them to reprogram their systems before they're in a position to
derive a benefit from doing so.
I'd also suggest a change in point 1. You have:
1 - The solution must provide immediate and
compelling benefits to any new or existing
end-user networks which adopt it, irrespective
of how many other networks have so far adopted
it.
I'd change "end-user networks which" to "end users who," and then
"other networks" to "others."
I know you're not a fan of the strategy B approaches, but some of them
have the prospect of being functional as soon as two participating
hosts have been upgraded regardless of what happens with the rest of
their local networks.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
