Hi Tony- > First, I¹ve added some text in the Introduction: > > This document also includes the recommendation from the research > group to the IETF. The group did not reach consensus on this > recommendation, thus the recommendation reflects the decision of > the co-chairs. The group did reach consensus that the overall > document should be published. > > The last sentence is a bit presumptive at present. ;-)
I also don't believe it is a true statement. As currently written, I would not agree that this document should be published as the product of a group called "the RRG", particularly not if my attendance in all of the RRG meetings, including on the "[email protected]", and participation in all of the discussions that occurred during the past three years mean that I am a member of that group. I strongly object to the original phrasing of section 17.2: > 17.2. Recommendation to the IETF > > On behalf of the routing research group, the co-chairs would like 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] which I realize is undergoing changes. The critical point is that by stating "On behalf of the routing research group", you are implying that this document is a recommendation that reflects the opinion of the group of people making up "the RRG", which presumably includes those on the "[email protected]" mailing list and/or those who attended RRG meetings during the past year. This implication will remain even if you explicitly state elsewhere in the document that no consensus exists. Given the lack of any semblence of consensus (beyond perhaps an agreement that no conensus on any recommendation is possible), it is completely inappropriate to even suggest that "the RRG" contributed to or supports this recommendation. In addition, I strongly object to the naming of this document; by titling it "draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-xx.txt" there is once again an implication that the document and any recommendations it contains reflects agreement among members of "the RRG". As discussion before, during, and after the last RRG meeting has clarly shown, that simply is not the case and to imply otherwise is misleading, however unintentionally. If this document is to stand as written, it must be renamed and resubmitted as an individual contribution by the RRG co-chairs. Furthermore, any text which implies or infers that its recommendations reflect the opinions or views of other RRG participants must be excised before it is published. I welcome your describing the alternatives considered within the RRG and the deliberations that went on there but any recommendation must be exlicitly labelled as the opinion of you and your co-chair. I am aware that the results of IRTF RG are not required to reflect group consensus but am concerned that the audience for your document, which will include the IETF and the larger community of RFC readers, do not understand this fine distinction between an IRTF RG and IETF WG. In my opinion, there is sufficient potential to mislead or confuse that both the content and the process of publication for this document must be crystal clear regarding its origin. As a participant in all of the RRG meetings and discussions that occurred during the past three years, I cannot in good conscience allow my name to be associated, either implicitly or otherwise, with the recommendations made in this document; my guess is that other RRG members feel the same way. An alternative approach (suggested by Noel) to resolving these concerns might be to split this document into two: the first would describe the RRG deliberations and include the synopses of various proposals, maybe along with classification of each along several axes, such as: host vs. network-based solution; network elements requiring changes (hosts, customer-preises equipment, provider-edge, core); applicability for IP, ipv6, or both; infrastructure dependencies (DNS, new devices/services needed, etc.) and so on. Such a descriptive document would be an excellent and successful output from the RRG and I would wholeheartedly support its publication as a product of the RRG. The second document would express your opinion and recommendation to the IETF and would be an individual submission Internet-Draft and RFC with you and Lixia as the authors; it would reference the descriptive RRG document and explain how you came to your conclusion. Section 17 of your current draft would form the basis of the second document while the remainder would make up the first. I hope you will consider this suggestion as a way of communicating good information to the Internet community while at the same time clearly defining where agreement did and did not exist during the RRG deliberations. Incidentally, I would be also interested in seeing the opinions of RRG members on how to move forward with this. Given four options: 1. publish the document as-is as an RRG recommendation to the IETF 2. remove RRG references and publish as an individual contribution 3. split the document as described above 4. none of the above (please describe an alternative) which would you choose? Thanks, --Vince _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
