+1
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel > M. Halpern > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:32 PM > To: Vince Fuller > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [rrg] Proposal for recommendation language > > 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 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
