Hi Dan, In:
Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01585.html You wrote, in part: > The RRG has not yet been able to agree on what motivations are > possible in the long term (have we even decided on the duration of > this 'long term'? 1000 years? 50 years? 10 years?). An example > of this lack of agreement is that Bill Herrin just made arguments > for the need for PI space due to some current operational > practices. Tony Li rebutted that these practices can change over > time. Is it safe to assume that any proposal requiring these > changes must come with some reasoning that these changes will > indeed occur over time? > > Robin suggests that instead of trying to develop a general driver > constraint, we should recommend specific proposals and discuss > them. For any particular proposal, we know the changes proposed. > We can argue about the feasibility of the changes and evaluate the > proposal based on this as well as the proposal's effectiveness, > security, etc. However, Tony doesn't think this is a good course > of action. I think the RRG needs to decide on a time frame for a solution, and on whether we are pursuing a single solution, or multiple parallel streams of research. If so, do we discuss all those streams on the RRG list, or should there be one or more other lists? Then, for any stream of research, there is the question you mention of whether we focus on conceptual discussion, avoiding specific proposals. I understand the desire to see beyond current proposals and to seek new ideas, but I am very much opposed to ruling out discussion of all the juicy details by which actual IT systems sink or swim. Call it engineering or whatever - this is research in an engineering field, and we need to think about every possible detail, while also thinking about broad architectural principles and new ways of approaching the problem. In this message: Conceptual vs. specific - another discussion list? http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01530.html I proposed a second RRG-Sandbox list to carry a wide range of RRG-related discussions which were outside the scope of the RRG list, since I understand the need to exclude from RRG discussions quite a range of things in order facilitate progress as Lixia and Tony think is best. I was also prompted by rough consensus being achieved on: http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01535.html Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward for IPv6. which I think would make it difficult or impossible to discuss IPv4 at all on the RRG list. In these two messages: 3 potential consensus questions http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01574.html Long term clean-slate only for the RRG? http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01594.html I suggest the RRG needs to decide ASAP whether we are pursuing several lines of research or just one - and if so, which one. - Robin -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
