-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:42 PM
> From: "George, Wes E [NTK]" <[email protected]>
> those who came up with proposals were so convinced that their idea was
> the right one ... in the belief that someone is only against the idea
> because they don't understand it well enough, or were simply unwilling
> to compromise
No, there are other explanations, such as 'what spoken or unspoken
assumptions about the environment, both current and future, are people
making'. The thing is that one probably can't say a priori, or necessarily
even provide emperical evidence a priori, that people's views on such
important factors are correct or incorrect.
E.g. Ran and I have different models ... Peoples views on things like that might
bias them, say, towards a solution which is uglier (architecturally), but
more tuned to the existence of lots of unmodified devices.
[[WEG]] Fair enough, I was oversimplifying. However, the net result is largely
the same. Whatever the underlying reasoning, and no matter how sound it may
appear, we still have fundamental disagreement that is leading to an
unwillingness to compromise to move towards consensus.
IOW, if we can't all be right, and we can't prove that the other person is
wrong, then it is time to pick a direction and make it work, hopefully with the
best information we have at the time reducing our chances of being totally and
utterly wrong.
If there are still fundamental disagreements about certain things, like
changing vs not changing hosts, etc, then that means the risk is high that we
might be choosing wrong. So rather than there being 2 or 3 different complete
solutions because of a difference in a few key areas, these would ideally be
variants on one implementation to give it flexibility. I admit that this is not
always going to be possible, but I think it would have at least reduced the
amount of discrete proposals a bit.
The closest analogy I can give is that this is becoming like denominations or
sects in religion. We follow the same deity and rough moral code, but you and I
disagree on one specific point of interpretation, and instead of agreeing that
there's probably more than one valid interpretation and having the flexibility
to manage both interpretations, I go off and start a whole new sect and we
argue endlessly over who is right.
> Option 2/3 is a no-op, because not only would there be a Tony/Lixia doc,
> there would be an IVIP doc, and there would be a [LISP] doc, and an
> IRON-RANGER doc, etc, etc.
> ...
> the solution to the lack of consensus problem isn't to write MORE reams
> of text in support of individual proposals as in option 2/3 above
No, that is not the intention of option 3. The intention of 3 is that there be
_two_ documents: the first being an RRG 'proposals overview' document which is
the existing overview/criticism/rebuttal groups for each of the proposals, and
the second being an individual document which is the co-chairs recommendation
document.
[[WEG]] Ok, that's better than what I was thinking you were suggesting, but I
still fail to see the value in doing so vs. leaving the recommendation within
the current draft if it's to be the only one. IMO the only reason to separate
it would be to treat the chairs as no one special and open the door for what
would end up being multiple individual contributions for recommendations. Even
if we have some self-imposed criterion like "you must have at least X other
people who support your proposal in order to write a draft-irtf-rrg-*
recommendation draft" so that there isn't necessarily an RRG recommendation for
each proposal, it still ends up being very fragmented. If we're separating the
recommendation because it's just an individual (or minority group)
recommendation, and we can't even get to enough consensus to recommend one
proposal of each type, we'd be better off just dispensing with the
recommendation altogether.
Wes
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
