I support Bill's suggestion too. The summaries, critiques and counterpoints are what matters. They contain introductory material, references and some critical perspectives on the real ideas which were generated or at least refined during this phase of the RRG.
As the draft stands at present, I think readers could get the impression that the recommendation was fully informed by all the material which precedes it. However, at the time the co-chairs decided on their recommendation, there are reasons to believe they did not properly understand at least some of the architectures: The co-chairs do not understand Ivip and some other architectures http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06373.html (2010-03-27) The recommendation didn't result from the efforts of the architecture designers or from the RRG itself - so it should be published separately with the co-chairs as authors, not editors, and stand on its own merits. - Robin Toni Stoev wrote: > William Herrin wrote: > >> I think the document should be renamed "RRG Report" instead of >> recommendation and section 17 should be simply be cut after the second >> sentence ("the group did not reach rough consensus on a single best >> approach.") > > I support this idea. Not having the consensus, the document is just a report. > > Toni _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
