Hi Fred,

You wrote:

>> I am trying to prompt people into actually debating proposals, rather
>> than just talking about their own.  Point 1 doesn't include people
>> arguing why Ivip is the best choice, but I would be happy for someone
>> to do so.
> I think part of the problem is that with a few exceptions
> (such as yourself) those who have their own proposals may
> be so deeply engrossed in understanding and expressing what
> they are trying to accomplish that it is impossible to bring
> our heads up above water long enough to give a deeper
> consideration for other proposals. Or maybe I am just
> speaking for myself...

This is the problem I am trying to overcome.  As noted by k claffy
and Eliot Lear:

    feature comparison chart, conscripted peer review ?

the RRG suffers from lack of critiques of proposals.  k claffy
suggested everyone who wrote a proposal be required to critique three
or so others.  Eliot concurred:

   I think this is a great (and necessary) idea to give authority to
   the work people are doing.

I learn a great amount by reading and discussing other proposals.
Some of the most significant improvements to Ivip arose when I was
trying to understand or improve on someone-else's proposal.  These
were all proposals I didn't think would work - but I still learnt
about scalable routing by reading and discussing them, and I was
prompted into thinking things which turned out to be improvements to
Ivip where I never thought there was a need for improvement.

The modified header forwarding stuff arose when I was discussing
Six/One Router, though there's no such thing in Six/One Router.

The DRTM idea - which overcomes some big objections to Ivip - came
from imagining an improvement to a recent proposal (I think it was
Compact Routing), then thinking it would be a possible improvement to
LISP and only then developing it further and seeing it would be an
improvement to Ivip.  There is absolutely nothing of DRTM in whatever
proposal I was writing about - but writing prompted a line of
thinking which turned out to be productive.

Of course I learn basic things about scalable routing from discussing
other proposals - especially discussing things with you.

Now's the time to quote Brian Eno (Backwater 1977) and his critique
of the straight-line, overly self-focused, approach you mentioned:

   But if you study the logistics
   And heuristics of the mystics
   You will find that their minds rarely move in a line
   So it's much more realistic
   To abandon such ballistics
   And resign to be trapped on a leaf in the vine.

I learnt a bunch of stuff reading and discussing the 14 other
proposals even though I _knew_ none of them were as good as Ivip.

I think others would have the same experience - and that this would
be a better way of improving their proposal than by working on it in

  - Robin

rrg mailing list

Reply via email to