Re: [rrg] Deadline for critiques - and RANGER

[Robin Whittle <[e-mail]>]

Short version:   I request the deadline be extended and am asking
                 Tony to contribute a critique of the three most
                 important architectural choices which are the basis
                 for Ivip.  Such a critique would also be directly
                 relevant to the same or different choices made by
                 the designers of many other proposals.


Hi Tony,

You wrote:

>> Short version:   I think we need another two weeks to write a proper
>>                  set of critiques.  I think writing the "rebuttals"
>>                  and the "reflections" won't take long - maybe a
>>                  week to do both.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I disagree.  In my humble experience, tasks tend to take
> at least as long as you allow them to.  

OK - that is your experience.

I don't know how many proposal IDs and other documents you have read
in full, but as far as I know, you have not attempted to write any
critiques.  My arguments concern those who are attempting to do both
- including especially those people who are attempting to do this for
several proposals.


> People procrastinate until the
> last possible second and then actually focus on the task at hand.  This
> is what causes schedule compression and slips.

Speak for yourself.  I have spent most of the last few weeks
improving my Ivip proposal and reading some proposals.

My first priority is to improve Ivip and respond to some thoughtful
comments on Ivip-arch-03.  Then, as I wrote, I have a bunch of
proposals to read and understand in detail.  Proposals can't be
understood and properly assessed in isolation - we need to understand
the alternative proposals too.

Then I will try to write respectful, comprehensive and well informed
critiques.  Trying to do this for LISP in only 500 words will take a
lot longer than with a less stringent word limit.


> The only alternative is to provide a schedule that allows those who are
> proactively trying to meet the schedule ample time for all aspects of
> the task and then stick to it.  That's exactly what we're trying to do.

OK - then please accept my arguments.  As far as I know, there isn't
anyone else who is working harder to provide the critiques you need.

I don't recall you and Lixia asking list members how long it would
take to read and critique the proposals.  You simply announced a
deadline which was impossibly short, and which has now been extended
twice.  Only Joel and Yakov met the first extension - and as far as I
know, they were working on only one proposal.


> Three weeks to produce 500 words seems like it should have been ample time.

This is an extraordinarily reductionist perspective.  Some of us - me
at least - are working on reading and critiquing multiple proposals,
while trying to improve our proposals to make it easier for other
people to write well-informed critiques.

You have had two and a half years to understand Ivip and to write
something substantial about it on the list.  Likewise LISP and some
other current RRG proposals which have been under development for two
or more years.

I don't recall you have done so.  Nor have you made or contributed to
a proposal yourself.

As far as I know, your role as co-chair does not prevent you from
commenting constructively on proposals.  Indeed I think this role
means you should be leading by example to show how constructive
critiques should be done.

The new Ivip-03 ID is perfectly readable.  It will take you about two
hours.

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-whittle-ivip-arch-03

      (Please ignore the concept of Launch servers being involved
       in a complex pipelined protocol.  I am about to replace them
       with ordinary Replicators in a fully meshed arrangement.
       There is no need for delays or any other protocols.  They
       will be replaced by level 0 replicators flood each other and
       then drive the other levels as described.)

I don't think you will have any difficulty understanding it.  If you
do, please email me on-list or privately.  It concerns goals,
non-goals, architectural choices and the "engineering" details which
drive those choices.

I would really like you to contribute something to the critique of
Ivip.

I hope you will be able to discuss what, if any, objections you have
to the three most important architectural choices I made:

  4.1.  Core-edge separation rather than elimination . . . . . . . 27
  4.2.  Local query servers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
  4.3.  Real-time mapping distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Your assessment of the first choice would also constitute an
assessment of the same choice made by the designers of LISP, TIDR and
RANGER (and APT & TRRP).  Likewise it would be an assessment of the
opposite choice made by the designers of the 6 or so core-edge
elimination schemes which the RRG is considering.

Your assessment of the second choice would also apply to APT.  It
would also be relevant to LISP-ALT, which is based on a rejection of
the idea of local query servers in favour of a global query server
network.

Your assessment of the third choice would also be relevant to all the
other core-edge separation schemes - which are based on the
assumption (which has never been properly debated) that real-time
mapping distribution is either impossible or undesirable.

As far as I know, you can easily do this by Monday night.  However,
by Monday night there's no way I can provide the RRG with all the
critiques I am most keen to write.

In the absence of a sudden flurry of other people offering to
critique TIDR and LISP, I request that you and Lixia extend the
deadline.

I also want to contribute to the critiques of Name Based Sockets and
ILNP before the deadline and plan to write something about all the
other proposals before the final decision-making process begins.

  - Robin