Re: IDPR as a Proposed Standard

little@ctt.bellcore.com Thu, 16 April 1992 22:23 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04631; 16 Apr 92 18:23 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04054; 16 Apr 92 18:26 EDT
Received: from PARK-STREET.BBN.COM by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04050; 16 Apr 92 18:26 EDT
Received: from park-street by PARK-STREET.bbn.COM id aa15086; 16 Apr 92 18:09 EDT
Received: from BBN.COM by PARK-STREET.BBN.COM id aa15079; 16 Apr 92 18:08 EDT
Received: from ctt.ctt.bellcore.com by BBN.COM id aa29153; 16 Apr 92 18:11 EDT
Received: from lancelot.ctt.bellcore.com by ctt (4.1/1.34) id AA06002; Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:11:22 EDT
Received: from localhost.ctt.bellcore.com by lancelot.ctt.bellcore.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA18288; Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:11:21 EDT
Message-Id: <9204162211.AA18288@lancelot.ctt.bellcore.com>
To: yakov@watson.ibm.com
Cc: iab@isi.edu, iesg@nri.reston.va.us, idpr-wg@bbn.com, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, little@ctt.bellcore.com
Subject: Re: IDPR as a Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Apr 92 14:23:17 EDT." <9204161848.AA03191@ctt>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:11:20 -0400
From: little@ctt.bellcore.com

Yakov,
  I disagree with your assertion that the IDPR protocol design was
done in a closed fasion and would be suprised if you can find any
participants at that time to attest otherwise.  You are perhaps
confusing the ORWG architecture work with the IDPR protocol work.
I was one of the last 'closed' ORWG members to leave the WG, and I
did so at the time it transitioned to an open group.  I cannot
attest to the group dynamics within the open and expanded membership,
but I can tell you that the IDPR protocol design decisions were not
firmed up at the time I left.
  I have briefly reviewed many of the recent comments over the IDPR
protocol functionality and design and I am reminded of a moment
during an ANTF meeting when I realized that one reason some of our
discussions would not reach closure was because we could not agree on
the perspectives from which to view the problem.  All points were
equally valid from the given perspective, and all solutions were
equally invalid (or valid) from an opposing perspective.  The funny
thing was, most perspectives were plausible to most people.  (None
of us could predict the future, unfortunately, and we would often try
unsuccessfully to convince ourselves it would look like the present). 
Since most perspectives were valid under the agreed upon goals, we
essentially were searching for an ordering of tradeoffs to which we
all could agree (it was very difficult to track all of the
perspectives and tradeoffs).
  These recent discussions have similar characteristics, and if there
cannot be agreement on which perspectives are of what importance
then there is likely to be an arbitrary closure, if one at all.
Noel makes a very valid point, there is much to be gained from the
IDPR work.  Yakov, as I read, is making the equally valid point is it
safe/useful to utilize the IDPR work.  Let's maintain a focused
perspective and leave the baggage behind.

					-Mike

A perspective of my own for Yakov  -
	The wave under which you are trying to bury IDPR 
	is the one on which BGP rode.