On 2010-10-02, William Herrin wrote:
I did not consent and many of the folks who grudgingly did first repeatedly asked you to strike the chair's recommendation from the document. You unilaterally refused then and have once again declined to poll the group on it today.
I won't stake anything on an issue I'm not thoroughly familiar with, but... Why argue about polling on-list? Why don't *you* poll the group, if that is what you feel should be done? There's nothing that would stop you from doing so, especially if you do it nicely, frame the poll reasonably, and take some rudimentary precautions against undue populism from irrelevant or late arriving people (like me).
I don't like the ethics of it Tony. Even now you have the authority to bring the document back to last call if there is some serious defect. [...]
If there's one thing I've learnt online, it's that Flames lurk within the Tubes, and that they should be quenched before they flame up. If this was one of my IRC channels -- most of which deal with something much murkier than Internet routing -- I would've stopped the discussion right here because of the overly personal and combative tone.
How about rerepresenting the relevant evidence instead? Maybe somebody missed something, somewhere? Somebody has to have done that when a purely technical issue suddenly arouses this much emotion, no?
[...] the easiest response is that the the chairs, Li and Zhang, made up the recommendation _against_ the group's consensus. That in fact there was no consensus and the proposal with the most support, Lisp, was actively excluded on the chairs' whim.
I don't think an RG has to have consensus. Even a rough one. The lack of it is well documented as well, here. Why not document the fact in detail, from all sides, and then let it lie?
For the record, I used to like HIP quite a lot. Now, thanks to Robin's extensive analysis, I tend towards LISP+ALT(?) or some future derivative of it/them. Perhaps with some of HIP's initial handshake woven in for security and DDoS resistance. Why?
CES makes the end-user-to-network interface behave as it always has, and we have a huge track record of it working to our communal benefit. It also separates concerns, and leaves the road open to other kinds of architectures within the core (MPLS's track record immediately comes to mind). Then I might not agree about the precise architecture of how to do that; I for one would like to see LISP's encapsulation go away long-term-Ivip-style. But then why argue about such details at the RG level, and develop a flame war over it?
I mean, once we set the edge/core interface as it is and recommend CES as an overarching recipe, it's not such a hassle to engineer the specifics within the IETF and the industry. Why provoke a war here, about the specifics which ideally *should* be set lower down the chain?
(Finally, Robin, I know this isn't how you intended your analysis to be interpreted.)
-- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [email protected], http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
