Two comments, both editorial...
Part of the draft language tli posted was:
> The remainder of this section describes the rationale and
> decision of the co-chairs, and does not reflect the consensus of the group.
1) The sentence above can be parsed in more than one way.
I think the intended meaning of the last dependent clause
is actually that "the RG had no rough consensus on a
specific recommendation" rather than "the RG had a rough
consensus and the RG Chairs ignored that consensus".
So I'd suggest splitting the original sentence above into 2
distinct sentences. Candidate text (edit to taste):
The remainder of this section describes the rationale
and decision of the co-chairs. The RG itself was
not able to reach consensus on specifics of a
recommendation.
To the extent the RG Chairs' recommendations align with
the recommendations at the end of RFC-4984, at least in
terms of topics addressed by the recommendations, that
would seem worth noting.
2) More General RG Consensus
Noting that "rough consensus" is very different from unanimity,
I *believe* (could be wrong) that there were a small number
of conceptual things that the RG did achieve rough consensus
on. I'd like to see those noted as RG consensus items in
the Recommendation document.
I think one of those rough consensus items is:
The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of the
DFZ RIB/FIB is not believed to be scalable or viable.
I think another comes from RFC-4984, specifically from 7.2,
which suggests some form of ID/Locator split is desirable.
(NB: While the RG does not agree on the details of how that split
best should happen, there appears to be rough consensus within
the RG that some form of ID/Locator split is desirable.)
Yours,
Ran
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
