Hi Fred,
You wrote:
> Does that mean that the wool has been pulled over
> my eyes fair-and-square?
Yes - fair-and-square.
You mistakenly voted for a document which contained something you are
really opposed to. Its not surprising you didn't see this - who would
expect such a flat-out requirement ("desired" and "required", but
later summarized as "desired) for one approach (Loc/ID Separation)
with any other approach "required" to be compatible with it.
This requirement of compatibility - for instance of a CES architecture
such as IRON, Ivip or LISP with Loc/ID Separation - is not mentioned
in the summary of priorities, 3.11.
Here is the problematic section:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-04
3.4. Decoupling location and identification
Numerous sources have noted that an IPv4 address
embodies both host attachment point information and
identification information. [IEN1] This overloading
has caused numerous semantic collisions that have
limited the flexibility of the Internet architecture.
Therefore, it is desired that a solution separate the
host location information namespace from the
identification namespace.
Caution must be taken here to clearly distinguish the
decoupling of host location and identification
information, and the decoupling of end-site addresses
from globally routable prefixes; the latter has
been proposed as one of the approaches to a scalable
routing architecture. Solutions to both problems, i.e.
(1) the decoupling of host location and identification
information and (2) a scalable global routing system
(whose solution may, or may not, depend on the second
decoupling) are required and it is required that their
solutions are compatible with each other.
This text hasn't been altered since Tony's draft 00 of 2007-04-11. He
took no interest in my 2007-07-14 critique of draft 01:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00203.html
He took no interest in my most recent critique:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07560.html
He discouraged or attempted to ban discussion of *proposals*
(candidate architectures) for much of 2007, 2008 and 2009 - in favor
of an "architectural" discussion. Yet I don't recall him leading by
example in terms of what that discussion should be.
I think the list of things which Tony has exhibited, on the list,
genuine interest in is very small - considering the importance of our
task, the number of people who have attempted to contribute, and the
variety of ideas which have been proposed. I think his blank response
to your recent concern that you voted mistakenly is part of that
pattern.
You are duly recorded as one of the 12 people in favour of the current
draft being published as an official RRG RFC.
For the record, here are the votes:
http://doodle.com/idw28gc26vezipv9
Tony Li has created this poll.
"This is a consensus check on the publication of the RRG
design goals (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-
rrg-design-goals-04.txt) as an RFC."
In favor of Against Neither
publication publication
Tony Li
Hongbin Luo
Toni Stoev
Patrick Frejborg
Hannu Flinck
Stephen Strowes
Marshall Eubanks
Paul Jakma
rja (Ran Atkinson)
Wes George
(Toni Stoev, I think):
IEEE & ITU have this solved
Heiner Hummel
Fred Templin
Dae Young KIM
Robin Whittle
Officially: "In favor: 12
Against: 1
Vocally abstain: 1
Spam: 1"
He got your vote fair-and-square and is unapologetic about counting
it, despite you expressing your concern before the final count that
you made it in error.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
