Robin, I share your opinion about documenting design goals and taxonomy. I can imagine that getting these drafts to some end isn't work anyone likes to do. Who will read them later? Myself, I am pretty much indifferent on this. By reading your referenced former emails about the terms and pilosophies of CES versus CEE I halted where you wrote that CEE is more DNS-based (some how). TARA would take advantage of either philosophy: A (TARA-)locator would be retrieved in addition to the destination IP address from DNS, however this locator might be out-of-date e.g. because of roaming. The wrong locator however may still have some value: The roaming host might still be within the same geopatch or within some neighboring geopatch and by means of a well-scoped broadcast message (that starts from the ETR denoted by the wrong locator, the right ETR might be searched and determined. Will say: TARA bridges this kind of opposition (between CES and CEE). Heiner In einer eMail vom 01.09.2010 13:44:47 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
Short version: I think it would make no sense to do more work on the RRG Design Goals draft now, since it resulted from minimal discussion in early 2007 and has not been discussed or revised since then. Likewise, I think it would make no sense to use the current draft as a normative reference in the Report, or to pretend that the RRG completed a "list of prioritized design goals", as required by our Charter. Hi Tony and Paul, Tony, you wrote, in part: > The expired normative reference is the design goals document. > We'll be updating that and passing that up for IRSG review as > well. This is the first time I am aware of you expressing interest in working on: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01 since 8 July 2007 when you created this version 01. As I wrote in March this year: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06160.html this version 01 resulted from very few list messages. Your announcement of it was: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00183.html The scalable routing phase of the RRG began on 2007-03-17, with message 29. We are now up to message 7287. There have been 40.5 months since then, averaging 179 messages a month. The Design Goals version 01 resulted from about 36 list messages, between about 11 people - though I guess there were off-list discussions too. Most of these messages were no more than a few sentences. By message count, this is half a percent of our list discussions to date. A week after you released version 01, I wrote some detailed suggestions: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00203.html thinking there would be further discussions and a new version within weeks. However, nothing happened. I wrote more suggestions in December 2007: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00733.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00786.html and there was one brief response from Xiaohu Xu. Neither you, nor (I think) anyone else has discussed the Design Goals on the mailing list in any substantial fashion since July 2007. We should have worked much harder on this. I think the proposals in the Report are not based to any substantial degree on the Design Goals version 01, since that was a very early document, rarely discussed or mentioned on the list. All the actual material is in Section 3 - just 1047 words. A week ago, 18 people voted (all Yes) on publication of the Report: Tony Li, Joel Halpern, Ran Atkinson, Mohamed Boucadair, Fred Templin Wes George, Klaas Wierenga, K. Sriram, Robin Whittle, Ruediger Volk, Hannu Flinck, David Williamson, Patrick Frejborg, Stephen Strowes, Shane Amante, Bruce Curtis and DY (Dae Young Kim). These people wrote about 39% of the list messages to date. These 18 people do not include anyone from the LISP team, or proponents of about half the 14 proposals. Even if these 18 people, and whoever else is still engaged in the RRG, did agree on a revised Design Goals document, it would not be a document which was used in the preparation of the proposals. Each proposal should, I think, contain an explicit discussion of its goals and non-goals. Ivip has 18 pages of goals and non-goals: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-whittle-ivip-arch-04 Due to the 500 word limit on the Summary for each proposal, the RRG Report can't be expected to convey the full set of goals and non-goals for each proposal. Rather than pretend that all the proposals referred to the Design Goals draft, it would be better to let the reader delve into each proposal's documentation regarding goals and non-goals. Another requirement of the Charter was to produce a taxonomy. Bill Herrin worked towards this and I tried to refine it in 2009: http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/rrgarch/ A second attempt at a taxonomy was the Core Edge Separation (CES) vs. Core Edge Elimination (CEE) distinction: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html (17.3.3) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06110.html Though at least one person supported writing up the CES/CEE distinction material as an RFC, I have not had time to do it, and the distinction and terminology has been rejected by some people, including Ran Atkinson. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
