Hi Lixia, Thanks for your reply. On adding a section regarding the constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption:
> Looks like there is no consensus for this proposal. OK - it was just a suggestion. > ANyone can always submit their work as individual draft, perhaps > you can even working with the few people that share your views. I would like to do this. If anyone wants to help, please contact me offlist. >> Short version: What objections are there to having two or more >> well written, generally non-overlapping, ~500 >> word critiques for a proposal if the authors can't >> figure out a way to express all their concerns >> in a single ~500 word piece? > > As I mentioned in the prev msg: we would like to summarize all the > issues with each proposal into one critique. I understand that agreement > some times is difficult (hence rough consensus needed). It is unrealistic to expect individuals to reach rough consensus on anything. If we can, then that's great. If we can't, this needs to be respected and documented. >> Could the Report include a section near >> the front classifying the proposals into >> various groups? > > will try to look into this. OK. I think some kind of guide is really important. The classification I gave is my opinion, and I haven't yet read all the proposals fully. Perhaps my text could be the starting point for you and Tony developing a classification for which there would be rough consensus. Is there any reason for the current order of proposals? It seems not to follow alphabetical or any other order. >> RFCs are composed entirely of recycled electrons. > > this is very true. However I think there is an important bottleneck: > people's time and effort, which are very limited. Yes, but 500 words is an impossible constraint if you want to cover the divergent and sometimes contradictory view of two or more people. I think it would be a bad use of other people's and my time to try to nut out a 500 word critique of Name Based Sockets we could all be happy with. If you can work with Javier to include your concerns in his text, then that's great. If you can't handle multiple critiques in the Report, I will make an ID to include all the critiques for any proposal for which more than one critique has been offered. There won't be a 500 word limit, and each one will have the name or the one or more authors. We have done a lot of work on a very important and difficult subject. The critiques are perhaps the most concentrated and vital resource for anyone trying to understand scalable routing. The critiques are hard to find in the archives, and I think that for long-term access, having an ID or ideally an informative RFC is a better way to make the full range of critiques accessible. >> My LISP critique is in the current draft of the Report: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-04 >> >> and Noel Chiappa's: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05747.html >> >> isn't, simply because I wrote mine before Noel wrote his. >> >> I don't want Noel's critique to displace mine, nor mine to displace >> his. I think they are both perfectly good critiques and there is >> only a small amount of overlap. >> >> I want Noel's critique included in the Report. Likewise any other >> similarly thoughtful critique of LISP or any other proposal. > > it is purely my fault -- I agreed to look over both and find a solution > here last weekend; will get it done this weekend. Noel wrote: I don't really care whether both, or just one, are included. so I understand acceptable to him and me for my critique to remain in the Report. However, I am on the record as stating that I would prefer Noel's and anyone else's to be included too. Noel's critique, mine and anyone else's will be in my forthcoming ID. >> The RRG Report needs to be adopted by consensus, > > rough consensus. OK, that is what I meant - though Tony wrote: Please note that we are part of the IRTF, not the IETF and are not bound by the constraints of 'rough consensus'. While achieving 'rough consensus' would be optimal, given the time left that seems dubious. Our goal is still to make a recommendation on schedule. >> and I won't fully >> support a final version which I think is missing a significant >> critique such as Noel's or my (not yet finalised) critique of Name >> Based Sockets. >> >> Similarly, Javier's critique of Name Based Sockets is in the current >> draft and mine is not, simply because Javier wrote his first. >> >> I do not want my critique to displace Javier's. As far as I know, he >> doesn't want to exclude mine from the Report either. I don't want to >> have to try to jam my concerns into a single piece of text which >> Javier would also be happy with. There is a diversity of opinion on >> what needs to be critiqued in each proposal - and there's no point in >> trying to force consensus or give the appearance of consensus when >> none exists. > > Robin, I would like to clarify the following: > > - the reason one writes critiques is not to associate one's name to it, > but to explain the issues. Lets stop talking about "my critique" vs > "your critique", and start talking about the actual issues themselves. I am not trying to get my name associated with a critique for my own sake - but people who read a critique in the RRG Report need to know where it came from. I guess they can look at the list archives if they want, but that would be a time-consuming and error-prone task. My critiques focuses on the issues. There isn't a single 500 word document which can convey the issues I am discussing with those that Noel is discussing. Both of us already chopped down longer texts to get to 500 words. Likewise with Javier's any my concerns about Name Based Sockets. If you had no word-count limit on the critiques for the Report, then it would be possible to combine discussion of the issues from the various perspectives as required to represent the concerns of multiple people. > - if we focus on issues: we can either resolve the diversity of > opinions, or otherwise incorporate them if that deems beneficial to the > community. I think it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect that separate individuals can or should agree, or that they could be happy with trying to further truncate the expression of their ideas to force-fit it into an arbitrary word limit such as 500 words. >> You and Tony have already changed your plan by accepting a proposal >> very late - RANGER. No-one seems to object to this. > > there was a confusion somewhere that led to the RANGER delay. and since > we want to document all existing proposals, in case of doubt, it is > better to fall on the inclusive side. OK - I think RANGER should definitely be included. >> You have also >> accepted five proposals which are not actually proper scalable >> routing proposals: >> >> Evolution - Aggregation with Increasing Scopes >> >> This does not claim to solve the scaling problem - it is >> a number of suggestions for reconfiguring routers to achieve >> benefits which are very slight compared to the scaling >> benefits we need, but which may prove valuable while not >> getting in the way of a proper solution. >> >> Enhanced Efficiency of Mapping Distribution Protocols ... >> >> In the submission (msg05540) K. Sriram noted that this was >> intended for archival purposes: >> >> "I do not intend it to be a contribution for the mainstream >> set of proposals for a solution for scalability. . . . >> My main intent in submitting this proposal/document is for >> archival value." >> >> 2-phased mapping >> Layered Mapping System (LMS) >> Compact routing in locator identifier mapping system >> >> As with "Enhanced Efficiency ..." these three are for mapping >> systems only, not full proposals. >> >> I am not opposed to the inclusion of these five which were submitted >> despite Tony noting twice (msg05513, msg05496) that a mapping system >> alone is not a complete solution. >> >> I don't understand how you could be so relaxed about space concerns >> when including these five, and then be so concerned about space as to >> disallow the inclusion of multiple critiques for those complete >> proposals which people are most concerned about. > > (my own opinion) we want critiques to identify issues with a proposal, I > see it is most beneficial to the community to have all the issues > (including different views) about a proposal in one place. Sure - but for some proposals, it is impossible to adequately express the concerns of multiple people in 500 words. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
