On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Robin Whittle wrote:
Didn't anyone else think the second question was ambiguous,
nonsensical or whatever? What did people think they were agreeing or
disagreeing with by answering Yes or No to the second question?
FWIW, yes, it certainly was ambiguous, but it was apparent that lots of folks
interpreted it their own way. You made good points about different
interpretations in your previous post. In the end, it is not critical to
know why folks made the assumptions and interpretations they did. However,
in order to build consensus, it would not hurt to have more precise questions
but this is not an absolute requirement, and as Ran wrote, this seemed like
an intentional approach.
Let me expand this a bit on why I thought so. The question was:
B) "There is no reason to believe that a scalable solution for
site multi-homing will appear in the future so long as the
Internet proceeds with current architectural approach to
site multi-homing."
I interpreted this to mean that while a scalable solution for site
multihoming may appear or has appeared, I do not believe it will gain
sufficient momentum as long as the current architectural approach to
site multihoming persists. And I don't see a solution appearing that
would be better to the end-user POV than the current model. So I voted
"no". But based on different interpretation, e.g. just focusing on
technical solution, you might also vote yes.
So you can interpret this also differently, e.g.:
- "no reason to believe" is a rather strong wording. if you think
there is (only) 10% chance of this appearing, should you still vote
yes?
- "will appear" -- does it imply use (to significant degree)? As one
example, one might mention e.g. shim6.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
