Short version:   Surely we should aim to do better than assume there can
                 be no consensus.

                 If there was a statement which adequately represented
                 the goals, beliefs and arguments for these beliefs of
                 the major bodies of opinion amongst RRG participants,
                 then we could reach consensus that this was a
                 reasonably accurate statement - and recommend the IESG
                 consider these viewpoints.

                 As a start to this process, perhaps Tony or others could
                 write why CEE and Locator / Identifier Separation in
                 general, or ILNP (or another CEE architecture) is
                 the best choice over any CES architecture.  I think
                 this would include reasons why the extra burdens on
                 all hosts and the generally increased delays in
                 establishing communications would be justified by not
                 having to add so much complexity to the routing system
                 as a CES architecture would.

Hi Tony,

You wrote, in part:

> As always, the agenda will not be final until the meeting starts.  And
> sometimes not even then.  ;-)
>> Can you explain what happens next?
> No.  ;-) ;-) ;-)
> What I would like to have happen next is nothing but fantasy.  What I expect
> will happen will look like:
>     - Some initial discussion
>     - Presentation of the recommendation
>     - Feedback afterwards

OK - I understand from this you have no clear idea of what will happen.

>> Is the Recommendation to be discussed on the mailing list between
>> now and the meeting?  Will it be discussed after the meeting, and
>> if so for how long?
> Yes, folks are welcome to discuss the recommendation on the mailing list
> between now and the meeting.
> Yes, it will undoubtedly be discussed after the meeting, probably for
> several years.  ;-)

OK - but do you have a plan for when you will finalise the RRG Report?
Discussions after that are a different thing from those before you and
Lixia finalising it.

>> Do you judge consensus regarding the Recommendation at the meeting
>> or on the list?
> Given the lack of consensus that we have seen so far, there's not going to
> even be a call for consensus.

Then how could you be sure that no consensus existed?

>> Is there an absolute deadline for finalising the RRG Report?
> Not that I know of.  Of course, if we take too long, the IRTF Chair may step
> in.


>> What happens once it is finalised?  I understand the IESG will
>> consider it.  Will the question of what to do next - which, if
>> any, architectures are to be developed in the IETF - be discussed
>> on the IETF list and/or the RRG list?
>> I assume the RRG itself will continue, at least in the form of an
>> email list, until the IESG's decision.
> The IESG is free to do whatever it likes with the recommendation.  My guess
> is that there will be cursing involved.  ;-)   Eventually however, I would
> expect that the IESG would open a WG in the routing area to pursue this.
> Where the discussions occur, if any, is up to the IESG.


> I would expect that the RRG would continue on and address other routing
> research issues.  The RRG has been a standing group for some time and has
> looked at numerous issues.  This is only the latest work item.  Other
> obvious things that may be taken up: prevention of micro-loops, multi-party
> routing in mobile networks, etc.  I would expect that the next work item
> would be under new leadership, more appropriate to the subject matter.


It seems a curious plan to me - to assume there is no consensus, to
assume the meeting will somehow produce a "Recommendation" and then that
the meeting will debate it, but that there will be no test of consensus
on the list or in the meeting.

Surely there's a role for the co-chairs in trying to establish what
things people agree on and disagree on, and how the opinions of the
various individuals can reasonably be grouped, or at least described.

I think there would be little point in developing a Recommendation
which simply reflected the views of a subset of people, when there were
multiple subsets with different, reasonably coherent views - since
there's no way of choosing which subset's views to use for the
Recommendation except by quite arbitrary means.

Even if we are highly divided, I imagine we could reach consensus on a
Recommendation that the IESG consider, for instance, the three major
bodies of opinion, which are irreconcilable.  Then go on to state
common elements, points of difference and agreement - and include
three independent recommendations each group would like to make, with
reasons for each, with references.  Only don't try to make this stuff
fit in 500 words!

    (If anyone thinks 10k words is too long for a Recommendation,
     consider that there are probably 10 times this number of DFZ
     routers affected by the scalable routing problem and its
     potential solutions, and that each one is probably worth $100k
     or so.  That's $1M a word.  Or consider that for every word
     there are 100,000 Internet users or whatever.)

Then we could probably reach consensus that this statement was a
reasonable summary of the major bodies of opinion amongst participating
RRG members.  The Recommendation would not be to adopt a single
architecture, but that the IESG consider the three or whatever types of
approach which are most prominent.  I think this would be a useful
thing to work on and to present to the IESG.

As part of this, perhaps you could write something in favour of CEE and
Loc/ID Separation in general, or in favour of ILNP alone or whatever -
and state why you (and I guess others) believe it is worth changing host
stacks (and apps?) to use this new naming model and so burdening hosts
with more work, more packets, more delays etc. for the purpose of not
having to add so much (or perhaps anything) to the interdomain routing
system (as happens with CES architectures) - and perhaps for other
purposes.  That is for IPv6 only.

Then, if you have any recommendation for IPv4, likewise state what it
is and why it is superior to the alternatives.

At present there is one alternative recommendation for IPv4 and IPv6 -
my msg06162.  But if you write something like what I suggest, then
there would be a second alternative recommendation - and hopefully
other people will do the same and contribute their ideal recommendation

You wrote:

> What I would like to have happen next is nothing but fantasy.

You can keep it a secret fantasy, if you like - which pretty much
ensures it won't happen.

I don't think your position of co-chair should inhibit you from stating
your personal views, hopes, fantasies or whatever.  Indeed I think
being co-chair means you should state these, firstly so everyone knows
what you believe and why - and secondly to set an example for others to
do the same: stating what they believe *and* why this is a better set
of beliefs than the alternatives.

  - Robin

rrg mailing list

Reply via email to