Hi, Robin, The RRG might have had rechartered as LIS RRG.
I tried to change my vote, but I couldn't figure out how to do that. Do you know how? Or Once cast votes cannot be change? On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Robin Whittle <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- DY
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
