IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 21 September 2004 10:12 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA29870; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:12:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9hjx-0007gd-Kq; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:19:17 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9hXp-0007JB-Fd; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:06:45 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9hWm-00073z-06 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:05:40 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA29354 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9hd6-0007YH-HF for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:12:13 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6757E61AD4; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:05:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30086-03; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:05:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFFE61B8D; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:05:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:04:12 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Message-ID: <85DDA364DCE0FE2485763318@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
In-Reply-To: <414FEFFE.7090404@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <414EDAA2.9080205@thinkingcat.com> <414FEFFE.7090404@zurich.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.5 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Brian,

I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is 
actually less complex than Scenario O.

Also, I was surprised to find that of the two timelines in the writeups, 
the one for Scenario C was the shorter one. (That may reflect the writers' 
degree of optimism, however!)

So the outcome is not settled in my mind yet.

I'd like your comments on why you find Scenario O simpler, and VERY much 
like your comments on where the details of Scenario O need "hacking", if 
that's the conclusion of the community.

                       Harald



--On 21. september 2004 11:10 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> 
wrote:

> Thanks, to you and the various authors, for this effort
> and for reducing the choice to a binary one.
>
> To me, this clarifies that it's a one-horse race. I just can't
> see any argument for the extra complexity, overhead cost, and
> risk of Scenario C.
>
> Obviously we would need to hack at the details of Scenario O,
> but for me there is no doubt that it's the way to go.
>
> (My only regret is that Scenario O text doesn't include a short
> risk analysis, like Sceanrio C.)





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email