Personally, the only value I see in the part of the current document
before the chair's recommendation is as context for that recommendation.
The document is not a complete survey of what was discussed. It is not
even a complete critique of any one of the ideas. It is however a set
of pieces which give a reader some idea of what went one, what the range
of ideas is, and where to look for more ideas. As a separate document,
I doubt it is worth publishing as an RFC. Coupled to the chair's
recommendation, it at least has the property of bringing this phase of
the work to a clear state.
Put another way, in order for the chair's recommendation to be a
meaningful document without the rest of the text, you are asking them to
do a LOT more work. Given that they are trying to complete the task
that the IRTF chair directed, making this significantly more burdensome
is not helpful.
lets be clear. Splitting it, or adding more text, or more critiques, is
not going to improve the impact on the IETF. It is not going to improve
the impact on the research community.
If we can actually get acreement to add a few words that ID / Locator
split is a good idea, I would love to see that. I rather expect that as
soon as we try to wordsmith that, the same debates that have occurred
every other time will recur, and I am rather tired of repeating the process.
Yours,
Joel
Vince Fuller wrote:
[from Noel]
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.
As Noel pointed out in a separate message, I am the person making the
suggestion of splitting the current document. My intent was to clearly
distinguish between what was discussed in the RRG during the past three
years (the first document, to be published as an RRG document) and what
is being recommended by the two individuals who are the co-chairs of the RRG
(the second document, to be published as their individual submission).
I have participated in all and presented at some of the RRG meetings during
these deliberations, have been a member of the mailing list and followed the
discussions there, and have been working on the Internet routing scalability
problem since the arly 1990s. I'm should think that makes me a "member" of
the RRG. As such, I am extremely uncomfortable with the a document being
published in the name of that group that makes a set of recommendations
with which I do not agree and for which we all acknowledge there exists
no semblence of even rough consensus.
IMHO, the best and only truly fair way to achieve the goal of documenting
what the RRG has been doing, including points of agreement (such as a
recognition that the current routing system architecture can't scale and
maybe even that identifier/locator separation is a desirable property of a
new architecture) while at the same time fulfilling the need of the chairs
to make a recommendation to the IETF is by publishing two documents. As
Noel pointed-out, little new writing is required.
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
There are no rules forbidding individual contribution Internet Drafts. I
am in no way whatsoever encouraging that. All I am suggesting is that the
parts of the current document that describe what happened in the RRG be
clearly and cleanly separated from the opinions and recommendations of the
co-chairs.
I would expect that the separate recommendation document, despite being an
individual submission, would by its nature refer to the RRG document. I
would also expect that the authors of the recommendation would state they
co-chaired the RRG during the deliberations that resulted in the definitions
and proposals contained in the first document. The consumer of that
recommendation, the IETF, would see all of this. But by creating two
separate documents, it would be much more clear that the recommendation
is that of the co-chairs and does not speak for the members of the RRG.
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.
To quote from my original message:
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)
what you described in the text above was option #2.
My preference is clearly for option #3.
I strongly oppose option #1.
--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
