Re: [Iasa20] draft-haberman-iasa20dt-recs-00.txt

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

> I guess I understand how the DT got there, but I'm a bit
> disappointed that so far, we only seem to have addressed
> the "should the IETF incorporate" aspect of the iasa2
> work.

That’s taken a fair amount of discussion, but in the
document Sections 5.2 and 5.3 are not about that.

I guess my question to you (and more generally all
of you) is whether we’ve missed options or aspects
that we should have explored. The idea with the
meeting next week is to talk more about potentially
missing options or what we should put into to the analysis
of those options, than what the “Right Answer” is
for the IETF yet.

So, do you have thoughts on what aspects we
are missing and which should be documented?
Or are you unhappy with the level of detail or
analysis of the current options?

> - I didn't find section 6 clear or convincing but
>  it's also hard to see how one might document
>  such an analysis at this point. Maybe when I
>  read it more closely or we see a presentation in
>  Prague, it'll be clearer, but as of now, the DT's
>  analysis isn't that clear to me. It could be that
>  I change my opinion about IASA++ if/when I do
>  understand the DT's analysis better, but I'd be
>  surprised if that were the case.

At this point, we’d love to hear your thoughts
on aspects that should be taken into account.
Lets worry about what the right conclusion is
later.

Jari