Joel,
I agree with much of what you wrote, even though you disagreed with what
I wrote ;-) Absent properly aligned incentives lots of pretty technical
work doesn't get out the door, and Silicon Valley is littered with
examples, as is the IETF.
My concern is that the active participants have very limited experience
in the field that is necessary to answer the question Ross asked. To my
knowledge in the last year there has been a single paper presented in
this forum that has even approached one side of the question, and that
was Luigi's work on a cost comparison of LISP mapping approaches.
Work on this sort of analysis HAS occurred, just elsewhere. For
instance, I think I've previously mentioned a paper done by Richard
Clayton at WEIS 2009 on an economic analysis of SHIM6, and why it is
unlikely to ever see wide deployment. I was thrilled that he did that,
because I'm hoping others will catch on and do that for other works in
this arena, but note that he didn't present the paper at the IRTF, nor
did he even participate in the IETF SHIIM6 working group. The work was
presented elsewhere.
And so the question we turn to is whether we should wait for others to
perform that work, and there I answer a definitive NO because we might
be gating for work that might never happen. Rather, as we have been
discussing, we caveat the recommendation by saying it is TECHNICALLY
feasible, and leave it to others to decide if it is ECONOMICALLY feasible.
Or is anyone here offering an economist a job?
Eliot
I would disagree somewhat.
While we are not MBAs, nor economists, and we are not (I hope) going
to do detailed business case analysis of deployment, nonetheless,
deployment is arguably the key question.
If there is not sufficient incentive to deploy the solution we
suggest, then it will not get deployed. And an undeployed solution is
not a solution.
(Many years ago Noel ran into this with Nimrod, where the difficulty
in articulating a benefit for anyone deploying as long as only a few
folks had deployed created an almost insuperable barrier to adoption.)
There are actually similar issues with several of the solutions. If
the interoperability depends upon certain kinds of deployment, then
there better be reasonable reasons for those deployments to take place.
Put differently, we know that flag days no longer happen.
Hence there has to be an incremental deployment story, with reasonable
benefits / incentives for that incremental deployment to take place.
(How big the incentives have to be obviously depends upon multiple
factors, including how big the costs are.)
Yours,
Joel
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 4/26/10 6:23 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
I feel that it is misleading to suggest that "It is technically
feasible to separate location and identity" unless there is at least
one proposal that does this that we agree is feasible.
Misleading to what end? To lead people to believe that there exists
at least one approach for locator/identity split that is technically
feasible? Has anyone claimed such an approach is infeasible? It
seems to me the debate within this group (at least amongst active
participants) hasn't been that, but rather which approach of the
several that have survived is MOST feasible.
In fact personally I think that it *is* feasible, but it is not
yet clear whether it is worth the cost (which I suppose is not the
point of "feasibility") [...]
Looking at incentives for deployment to me seems like a very
reasonable approach, but I don't know if it should be mandatory in
this group, given the type of expertise that requires. Either we're
getting into the MBA-level discussion of whether it's good for
business, which seems entirely inappropriate, or we're getting into a
formal economic modeling approach, which seems better handled
elsewhere in the academic realm, where real economists participate.
'The RRG did reach a rough consensus that it would be desirable to
separate location and identity, should we agree on a way to do so.'
The problem with that, from my perspective, is that you're
putting the engineering cart (the details of how to do it)
before the architecture horse (the high-level goal of
separating location and identity). To put it another way,
you're holding progress on the architectural front hostage
to agreement on the engineering front.
If we ignore technical feasibility, then there are a *lot* of things
which are desirable goals.
Yes, but this is the one WE are considering whether it is important
for US articulate.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
