I am replying to Tony and Ran. Hi Tony,
You wrote: > The tone of this is going south in a hurry. Can we please back up? What's wrong with "south"? My wife and live in Australia and she hails from Houston TX. I enjoyed visiting the South - Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and Arkansas. > Everyone here needs to act professionally and reasonably. I agree. > It is not unreasonable to have to read the draft before commenting. > It is wholly reasonable for an author to respond to questions from > those that have read the draft. DY (msg06408) had read the drafts and had further questions. You and Ran were mistaken to assume he hadn't. Even if DY hadn't read them, I think Ran should have answered the two questions which had yes/no answers and pointed out where in his documents DY could read more about these questions and about any other questions which involved answers which Ran didn't have time to answer on the list. Whether or not DY had read the IDs is only part of the story. Many other people are reading this list and I think everyone who writes should do their best to help those people learn about scalable routing. Ran was not at all helpful to DY or anyone else regarding the answers to DY's questions or which of Ran's documents to read in order to find the answers. > It is wholly unprofessional to demand an email based tutorial not > having read the basics. > > Let's behave ourselves, please. Neither DY or I made any such demand. I think DY is being constructive, professional and appreciative of Ran's proposal. You and Lixia haven't responded to my critique of some of the material in your slides from the recent meeting: The co-chairs do not understand Ivip and some other architectures http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06373.html As far as I can see, this indicates that at the time of the meeting, when you had made your decision about what to recommend, your understanding of Ivip was incorrect in many important respects and probably far from complete. You also classed two direct CEE architectures, which therefore directly compete with ILNP, in other categories - such as by dismissing Name Based Sockets as simply a mapping proposal. I wrote msg06373 6 days ago and I believe it is a professional, constructive, part of the RRG discussion. I know everyone is busy, but I do not regard it as professional or helpful for you and Lixia to leave questions such as this unanswered and unacknowledged for so long. Ran, You wrote, in part: > It seems entirely reasonable to expect that participants in the > RRG would at least read the applicable Internet-Drafts first. Yes, but its a lot of work to read all the IDs and other material for all the proposals. I think it is fair enough that people ask preliminary questions about a proposal in order to decide whether they should invest in reading all about it. I did not get the impression from DY's message (msg06402) that he hadn't read about ILNP already. He clearly supports your approach and was asking for clarification and confirmation of questions which were particularly important to him. > I did that for multiple proposals. Most other Routing RG folks > also did that for multiple proposals. This is common practice > and normal expectation in the IRTF (and for that matter, in the > IETF also). I encourage you to comment on the proposals you did read about. In particular I am keen for you to argue the case for the extra burdens ILNP and other such Locator / Identifier Separation architectures (which I and others call "Core-Edge Elimination") place on all hosts as a worthwhile choice in order to avoid the addition of new functionality in the network, as is done with CES architectures including LISP, Ivip and IRON-RANGER. For further information on this, please see my messages msg06250 and msg06219. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
