Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 21 September 2004 12:28 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 IAA08839; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9jrj-0001ku-Pn; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:35:28 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9jgW-0006W4-4H; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:23:52 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9jeX-0006Hi-KE for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:21:49 -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 IAA08470 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9jkt-0001f6-Us for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:28:24 -0400
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C9jeP-000OGF-Kh; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:21:41 -0400
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:21:41 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Message-ID: <513A9FA765E4067D58BD4897@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <85DDA364DCE0FE2485763318@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
References: <414EDAA2.9080205@thinkingcat.com> <414FEFFE.7090404@zurich.ibm.com> <85DDA364DCE0FE2485763318@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
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: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald,

FWIW, with one qualification, I tend to agree with Brian.  While
Scenario C seems to contain more detail and definition, a great
deal of it appears to be handwaving that tends to conceal more
complexity and more risk.  I suspect that both schedules are too
optimistic (which one is "more" too optimistic is something I'll
try to generate a note exploring when I have a bit more time)
and that, while O is missing a risk analysis, as a subsequent
note from Brian points out, the risk analysis of C seems to
underestimate some of the risks.  More on that in a bit too.

And, as you can guess from previous conversations we've had, I'm
not wild about the degree of control and involvement both
scenarios give the IETF standards leadership over financial
matters.  More on that soon, too.

   john


--On Tuesday, 21 September, 2004 12:04 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> 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





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