Hi, Robin, Thank you for filling the hole I'm responsible for having caused, but I'd also admit that I was not quite 'professional'.
I failed to attend the meeting, and I've watched the ML and noticed a wealth of discontent that the decision was by the co-chairs, not through consensus. Of course, I'm terribly busy as everyone else is, and my fault was try to take a shortcut by starting reading first ILNP and others later on. And it turns out that I like ILNP quite and it was a bit relieving since the co-chairs must have not done a whole bad job after all, for otherwise it would be a disaster. I'd admit that I'm not such an expert on routing as all others in RRG should be, so need some more elaboration to convince myself that this should be a good choice. Well, it seems it is not an educational venue here, and I'll have to figure out all mysteries I still have on my own. Regards, DY On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Robin Whittle <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
