sorry, someone pointed out a typo in (2) below;
i meant to suggest
(2) i understand such a chart is likely blocked on more meat
filled in on critiques/rebuttal/counterpoints for each
proposal. has the wg considered asking all proposal submitters
to submit critiques of at least three (or some N) other
proposals, including estimating the corresponding lines of
a feature comparison matrix?
this suggestion is based on the imbalance in the
current draft between ideas-submitted and
ideas-rigorously-evaluated. i suspect the IETF
needs more of the latter, which it doesn't look
like natural WG forces are going to produce.
k
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 09:57:14PM -0800, k claffy wrote:
robin
thanks for these "Comparison charts of:
CES: LISP-ALT/NERD, APT, Ivip, TRRP, TIDR,
IRON-RANGER and Six/One Router.
CEE: GSE, GLI-Split, ILNP, Name-Based Sockets."
two process questions:
(1) is there any plan for the RRG recommendation to include a more
complete version of such a matrix chart of proposals vs
rrg-documented design goals, with a pointer to enough explanation
of how well the proposal meets the design goal, or outstanding
complications? your charts are the first step i've seen in
this direction, but a more comprehensive comparison chart
would be incredibly useful.
(2) i understand such a chart is likely blocked on more meat
filled in on critiques/rebuttal/counterpoints for each proposal.
has the wg considered asking all proposal submitters to submit
critiques of at least other proposals, including estimating
the corresponding lines of a feature comparison matrix?
there is so much immense and impressive work going into this
process, i'm just wondering out loud about structural assists
that might improve clarity of the result and maybe even the
efficiency of getting there.
k
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
