Thanks guys, duly noted. I'll take a pass at composing more text. Tony
On 4/15/10 7:47 AM, "George, Wes E [NTK]" <[email protected]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:07 AM > To: Tony Li; IRTF Routing RG > Subject: Re: [rrg] Proposal for recommendation language > > Dear Tony, all, > > More elaboration and justification for selecting the proposed solutions would > be welcome. At least including some text to motivate why one single solution > is not convenient, what part(s) of the problem is covered by each of the > proposed three solutions, why other candidate solutions do not fulfil the > initial design requirements, etc. > > Cheers, > Med > > [[WEG]] Agree. If you ignore the whining about IVIP not being chosen/refuted > to his satisfaction (and his rehashing of his issues with you as a chair) from > Robin's message, he has a point. Your recommendation does not currently have > sufficient information to stand on its own as anything other than a > pseudo-random choice on the chairs' part driven by the absence of a consensus > from the group. While I have a lot of respect for you and your opinion, your > credibility as chairs and IxTF participants is not strong enough to ensure > that the recommendation is taken seriously by the community on face value > alone. I assume that some thought went into the recommendation, so as they > told me in math class - show your work. Take the reader through the thought > process that led to this recommendation for you. > > The recommendation certainly doesn't have to re-hash each discussion in the > previous section, but it does need to hit a couple of the high points. I'd > like to see something that expounds on the contributed critiques and defenses > of ILNP when compared to the other proposals which are not being recommended - > in other words, "the recommended proposal addresses the following problems > present in X, Y, Z proposals (or categories of proposals) in the following > ways...." > It may also be helpful to at least identify why the outlined problems are > fundamental enough to sink the other proposals. > Also, you need a section - "the following issues are still known to exist with > the recommendations..." which leads to an explanation of why multiple > proposals are needed, as well as outlining the problem-space that IETF needs > to solve to actually implement these ideas. > > As to why multiple proposals are required to solve the problem, you have some > feedback in the form of the comments from myself and several other operators > in Anaheim- We see AIS as a short-term solution to buy us time to build a > better one, which in this case is ILNP. Consensus not being an option, I'd > think that Operator feedback might be a good way to lend credibility. > Lastly, you also need to draw a better logical link to why renumbering is > specifically mentioned here - if the problem is either unique to ILNP's > implementation, or fundamental to make any of these proposals work better, say > that. Otherwise, I'm not sure it's clear why that's referenced. We know > renumbering needs work, we have a good draft telling us why, but unless you > make it clearer why it's something that has to be fixed in the context of RRG- > what not fixing it would exacerbate in the RRG recommended solution, it shows > as an afterthought. > > Thanks, > Wes > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Tony Li > Envoyé : mercredi 14 avril 2010 00:36 > À : IRTF Routing RG > Objet : [rrg] Proposal for recommendation language > > > Hi all, > > I hope everyone's had a chance to get caught up with their day jobs after > IETF. ;-) > > I would like to start work on the language to go in section 17 > (Recommendation) of our document. As a strawman, I would like to propose > the language below. This would appear (modulo editorial changes) as the > complete text of that section. > > Comments? > > Regards, > Tony > > P.s. The draft is also open for folks that would like to make editorial > changes to their contributions. > > ---------------- > As can be seen from the extensive list above, the group explored a number of > possible solutions. Unfortunately, the group did not reach rough consensus > on a single best approach. Accordingly, the decision of the co-chairs is to > recommend that the IETF pursue work in the following areas: > > - Aggregation in Increasing Scopes [I-D.zhang-evolution] > > - Identifier/Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [ILNP Site] > > - Renumbering [I-D.carpenter-renum-needs-work] > > > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended > for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
