Short version: Q2 clearly means different things to different
people - so the poll should be re-run once there
are questions which everyone understands in the
same way.
Scott Brim (msg06255) and Pekka Savola (msg06254) regard Q2 as
ambiguous. My understanding of Tom Vest's message (msg06257) is that
he didn't know how to respond to the questions.
(BTW, Tom, your "Apple Mail (2.1077)" mail client sends each
paragraph as a long line, which makes your message difficult to read
in the archives.)
I think the results of this poll would only be of any value if it
could be limited to the subset of people whose stated understanding
of the questions were all the same. The vote attributed to "rw"
should be discounted, and I suggest the one attributed to Pekka also
be discounted since he regards Q2 as ambiguous. (Unless it can be
shown that everyone else who voted understood the question the same
as he did.)
Scott wrote:
> I never got around to responding because of the ambiguities.
I think abstaining is the correct response. If the questions are
presented in different poll in a manner I regard as unambiguous and
which I think are relevant to the field, I will vote.
> Also I don't see how it really matters. If it means what I think
> it means, it's a truism.
This would work for Eckhart Tolle attending the Mad Hatter's Tea
Party. But for demonstrating consensus in the RRG, it needs to be
established that all respondents understand the questions in the same
way.
Pekka wrote:
> In the end, it is not critical to know why folks made the
> assumptions and interpretations they did.
It depends on what the "end" is.
> 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.
I am sure it is an absolute requirement. Consensus concerns people
agreeing to the one thing. Just because people ticked "Yes" to the
one question means nothing in this respect if people's understanding
of the question varied significantly.
Pekka wrote:
> 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".
I am confident that, if implemented well, both Ivip and LISP would
provide benefits which would make widespread adoption possible. This
is primarily for the large number of end-user networks which lack the
resources to gain address space and advertise it as PI prefixes in
the DFZ.
I am especially confident of the TTR Mobility extensions to Ivip (or
in principle, LISP) as being commercially attractive, right now, for
IPv4 global mobility. This doesn't compete with anything, since
there is no other way of attaining a global unicast address for a MN,
which is retained irrespective of its one or more connections to the
Net, including behind NAT. For an overview and pointers to the IDs etc.:
Recommendation suggestion from RW (v2)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html
On this interpretation of Q2, I would vote "No". But I am not voting
in this poll because Q2 is far too ambiguous.
> 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?
I agree - it is unclear what "no reason to believe" means.
> - "will appear" -- does it imply use (to significant degree)? As one
> example, one might mention e.g. shim6.
Exactly - what does "appear" mean?
Ran - can you provide a fuller explanation and re-run your poll once
it appears that people all agree what it is you are asking?
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
