Short version: Tony Stoev wrote, in part:
> If you want to tell the world what to do with the
> IP routing system, act now.
I agree - and suggest he and other people write some
Recommendation text they would most like everyone to
agree with.
Hi Tony,
You wrote:
> I hope this is the end of personal feud here.
I think RRG participants are unlikely to be happy with a
Recommendation which was made by the co-chairs alone, without any
attempt at seeking consensus - especially if the final document
represents the Recommendation as arising from the group itself.
Their intention to write the Recommendation themselves only emerged
when I asked them to clarify their plans on 7th March.
Also, some people - me at least - think that the co-chairs could have
done a much better job of supporting discussions in the last three
years. Discussion of "proposals" was generally banned or discouraged
- but they did not do much to suggest why this was being done or to
lead whatever kind of "architectural" discussion they wanted. Except
for two very early drafts, (draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01) they did
not seriously pursue the creation of a "list of prioritized design
goals" as required by the Charter.
Furthermore, as I wrote a few days ago (msg06373) the co-chairs seem
to seriously misunderstand Ivip and at least some of the other
proposals.
Still, even if there is no Recommendation - or no Recommendation
which arises from the participants - I think some important work has
been done, with several proposals being designed, refined and
documented in a manner which is of lasting value.
> This working group has a charter to produce recommendation.
> If you want to tell the world what to do with the IP routing system, act now.
I agree. I did so with the Ivip proposal, by critiquing all the
other proposals, and by writing some text of what I consider to be an
ideal Recommendation:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html
The only think I would change about that is my assessment of
IRON-RANGER, which has been significantly redesigned in the last
week. I think it is an interesting CES architecture which probably
could be made to scale well.
You have been participating in the mailing list for nearly a year,
but looking through some of your messages, I don't have a clear idea
of what you think should be done to solve the routing scaling problem.
I suggest you and others write to the list with your own preferred
text for what you suggest would be a good Recommendation.
Since there is no agreed set of goals, I suggest that you begin with
your goals and non-goals and your arguments for these. For instance,
are you keen for an architectural upgrade to include new support for
Mobility? Mobility is part of the problem the RRG is supposed to be
tackling - but it has received little attention, since most work has
been focused on portability, multihoming and TE for non-mobile networks.
Then I suggest you refer to each of the proposals, giving reasons why
you favour them or not. Perhaps you wholly support one of them, or
have qualified support for several of them. Perhaps you support an
alternative architecture which is different from those in the proposals.
I don't think it is good enough to simply discuss a preferred
architecture. I think that for any Recommendation (from an
individual or from the RRG as a group) to have credibility, it must
provide detailed reasons for rejecting all the other proposals.
Without this - and without those arguments being clear and based on a
good understanding of all the proposals - a Recommendation for any
one architecture would be incomplete and would not contribute to
constructive discussion.
Please write something along these lines - I think it would be a good
contribution to the RRG and would stimulate further constructive
discussions.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
