[PANRG] Is it useful for PANRG to produce a design goals draft?

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Dear PANRG,

I'm resending part of my first response to Med in a different thread,
because IMO it's not really about the draft he was commenting on, but is
important enough to (possibly) talk about in Vancouver. .

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 11:36 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Med had one meta-comment (below), that I'd like for the research group to
> consider. Please see below.
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 6:24 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Spencer,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for you effort on this document. I like the overall tone of the
>> document.
>>
>>
>>
>> The document is about things to not (re)do. Those things would be much
>> more clear if the readers have an idea of what we want to do at the first
>> place with pan (not in term of solutions, but as design goals). I wonder
>> whether some sort of priorities of pan design goals can be provided. See an
>> example in Section 3.11 of RFC 6227.
>>
>
> I first thought about this comment as a review comment on our draft, but I
> think it's more helpful to think about it as a new work item for the RG.
> With that in mind,
>
> If you don't (re)read RFC 6227, even taking a look at the table of
> contents is helpful. See
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6227/?include_text=1.
>
> After that, please continue.
>
>    - Theresa also asked (in her review comments) for a statement about
>    what Path Aware Networking was (or was not). I added a new subsection in
>    -06 that was expanding on the first sentence in our charter, and that
>    satisfied Theresa's comment, but she's an RG document editor, so people who
>    haven't spent multiple years in PANRG would likely benefit from more
>    explanation about the kinds of things people are currently trying to do
>    with Path Aware Networking.
>    - I think this would be extremely helpful in focusing the research
>    group on our goals (this is also related to, but not the same as, our
>    research problems, which also can focus us).
>    - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6227/?include_text=1 is only 8
>    pages long, and that covered all of Internet routing. I don't think a
>    document about our current goals for Path Aware Networking would have to be
>    any longer. Do others disagree?
>    - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6227/history/ says it took about
>    four years from -00 to approval as an RFC, but I don't think PANRG needs
>    four years to produce a design goals document, for a variety of reasons. Do
>    others disagree?
>
> Is this something we should talk about in Vancouver?
>

Thanks for your thoughts, of course!

Best,

Spencer