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

Sheng Jiang <> Mon, 28 January 2013 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5CF21F8A43 for <>; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:00:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmwcT28uz6+a for <>; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD2021F8444 for <>; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.4-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AWT84661; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:59:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:59:54 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:59:53 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <>
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Request to make the Framework draft an RG document
Thread-Index: Ac3uVy6sB61Gz5nVQqipQnnl1bYRKgOmhwpg
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:59:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
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: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 01:00:01 -0000

Michael and all,

I also think having a framework document to direct the work of the group is a good idea. The current framework is a well-written document. I support the adoption.

However, I think this document missed an objective session. For most of works, if we have clear and foreseeable targets, we can work back what research we should do and how we can achieve this object step by step. Section 4.3, "Containment, Control or Reduction of Complexity", for me, is something important. But it is too short and unclear. It should be expanded to be section 5, "objectives of network complexity researches".

Best regards,


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf Of
>Michael Behringer (mbehring)
>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 6:51 PM
>Subject: [ncrg] Request to make the Framework draft an RG document
>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 version.
>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 here.
>Thus: Who is in favour of making the framework draft an RG document?
>ncrg mailing list