Hi John,
As noted by k claffy and Eliot Lear:
feature comparison chart, conscripted peer review ?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06024.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06044.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06054.html
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 think this can be extended from the authors of proposals to those
who support a particular architecture. Its my impression you support
ILNP - but whatever you support, here is a suggestion about how to
further the cause of that architecture.
I suggest you argue why your preferred architecture is superior to
all the others - including with specific, detailed, discussion of the
other architectures and why, in your view, they either can't work, or
would not work as well as your preferred architecture.
As a prelude to this, I suggest you describe your understanding of
the scalable routing problem, whether your proposal handles Mobility
or not - and what other goals you think there should be for the once
in several decades upgrade to the IPv4 and/or IPv6 routing and
addressing system, host protocols etc.
My attempt to do this is here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html
If you disagree with any of this, I would appreciate you arguing why
on the list.
This is a general suggestion for many people on the list, but I am
mentioning it to you because you have recently expressed disagreement
with me on the list, without explaining your arguments at all.
You first wrote to the RRG list on Jan 31th. All four of your
messages to date have been brief, unsubstantiated, "critiques"
(perhaps too grand a word) of something I wrote. There's 50 words in
total:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05839.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06211.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06223.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06283.html
As I suggested to Ran (msg06284), in my opinion of course:
Just stating one's opinion is not a discussion. Nor is
it particularly interesting or informative. A proper
discussion involves explaining the reasons behind your
opinions, and the reasons behind those reasons, debating
these reasons and providing detailed critiques of other
people's proposals and arguments.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
