-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Greetings Xiaohu,
That discussion has been going on for a long time already. I won't
speak for the chairs, but the intent may be to focus the group on driving to a
rough consensus on the most likely path(s) forward, rather than continuing
along in a debating society. Then again, I may be completely wrong here....
However, if I am not, please remember, that from the time that
something gets done in the IRTF, it has to go to the IETF, get standardized,
rolled into code, regressed, bug stomped, and then the hard work starts. My
(as an operator) engineers have to understand it to design a network using it,
my planners have to understand it to account for whatever we are doing in their
planning formula, I have to train the NOC guys to use it, I have to train my
testing guys to test it, I have to find a non-sucky implementation of it, then
buy it, kick off a deployment program, rack it, stack it, commission it, and
then start using it in production. I completely left any OSS/BSS impacts out
of the litany because, if I thought about that, I'd just fall gibbering into a
dark abyss and never come out..... And then there are the impacts on my
peering agreements, interconnection contracts, etc (that means lawyers - oh my,
time to start drinking....)
Some of those pain points go away if it is an implementation approach,
with no new standards/protocols work required. However, by no means to all (or
even most) of those go away. I get to take the IETF delay inducing factor out,
but the rest are all still there.
In short, the IRTF producing a recommendation 1 year before I need it
would not only be not helpful, it would actually be ignored or at worse,
harmful.
Chris
On 27 Mar 2010, at 08.35 , xuxiaohu 41208 wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> Is there a so strict deadline for submitting a RRG recommendation that makes
> the RRG (co-chairs) to make such a hurried recommedation for a scalable
> routing and addressing architecture which is deemed to be useful in a long
> period of time?
>
> Is it reasonable to give us some time (e.g., three or four months) to argue
> against these candidate solutions so that we can realize whether or not all
> of them deserve the recommendation?
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
> ----- 原邮件 -----
> 发件人: Tony Li <[email protected]>
> 日期: 星期五, 三月 26日, 2010 下午2:13
> 主题: Re: [rrg] Recommendation
> 收件人: Scott Brim <[email protected]>, Noel Chiappa
> <[email protected]>
> 抄送: Tony Li <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> the recommendation of the [chairs of the] RRG
>>>>
>>>> IFYP.
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>>
>> I grep'ed for that and came up with things that didn't make sense.
>> I
>> suspect that Noel meant "IF You Please".
>>
>> While there is no argument that this is not a consensus based
>> recommendation, IRTF outcomes are not required to be consensus
>> based. So
>> while Noel's amended version is correct, the original is also correct.
>>
>> Just so we're all clear, I'm very disappointed that we were unable
>> to make
>> further progress in reaching consensus.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rrg mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
- - ---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
- ---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLrUhqAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/swcH/3fNV6Pi6+E9e3fNJy5UwwvA
J+t0bWhfLqRxEun7p+7y5LGlwygiUZNgytrrdTfQ4IwUY3dzJUT989lsKHEYjDJj
F2DaRnxDsMol54HKYzjckk2zZLe9+j9af03GDHjkMGPV3rcxI3wVQ6j8L8UE8c0N
ihcXP9guF/eTN2ZQcPK2rhc1IgBb6qXxA5o2Q5AQgD+78+aysc6xx8aHln6Ttsxd
9+wafT0HTiqiQZLo97n5QvI3XvUGbePOKZJSTJLYNLrv958F0G7M7zcJF2PFiw3W
fD3exou6w/DubM1qSHGXgmNFwy8DZsSncxpzRPGVr26VyL09wxpZsUw77QAN7hA=
=Fc5M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
