Hi, I agree with the comments Vince Fuller sent to the mailing list, and I think that option #3 (split the document) is the fairest solution.
Luigi On Apr 22, 2010, at 23:16 , Vince Fuller wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
