Re: [ncrg] Request to make the Framework draft an RG document

"Howard, Lee" <> Fri, 11 January 2013 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D13421F890D for <>; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:56:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.463
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id um2Nfv6p0cCr for <>; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 273CC21F8793 for <>; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:56:48 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,453,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="10632235"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 11 Jan 2013 12:56:44 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:56:47 -0500
From: "Howard, Lee" <>
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <>, "" <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:56:45 -0500
Thread-Topic: [ncrg] Request to make the Framework draft an RG document
Thread-Index: Ac3wJQWpO3ramGD0ROO6QCflBX7bzA==
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ncrg] Request to make the Framework draft an RG document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Complexity Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:56:49 -0000

There is no competing draft, and having a framework document to outline
the work of the group is a good idea.  I'm not certain that if work
proceeds as currently outlined, there will be a clear method for comparing
two potential protocols, two configurations, or two approaches, and
determining that one is more complex than the other.  The framework
describes metrics, but some of the metrics can generally only be applied
historically, not predictively, and none of them (as noted in 4.1) can be
applied to proposed protocols.

I look forward to seeing the next version, and hope we can adopt it.

Unrelated: I tried to create an account on and got
message, "out of captcha images; this shouldn't happen".


On 1/9/13 5:51 AM, "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <>

>Geoff and I had a call a couple of days ago. We're planning to re-spin
>the framework draft, take in the inputs received, and issue a new
>This new version should be issued as an IRTF document
>(draft-irtf-ncrg-..). While there is no formal process in the IRTF on how
>to make a document an rg document, let's apply the usual IETF policy
>Thus: Who is in favour of making the framework draft an RG document?
>ncrg mailing list

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.