Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process

Robin Whittle <> Sun, 13 December 2009 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE0E3A677D for <>; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:29:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.368
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.887, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RJP002ELAaib for <>; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA493A63D3 for <>; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:29:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B591759D1; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:29:12 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:29:16 +1100
From: Robin Whittle <>
Organization: First Principles
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:29:30 -0000

Short version:   The RRG Design Goals document cold be used as the
                 basis for a "template", but was based on very
                 little discussion and AFAIK has not achieved

                 I suggest that concise summaries mention how
                 suitable the proposal is for voluntary adoption in
                 IPv4 and IPv6 - perhaps with reference to this list
                 of constraints:


Hi Patrick,

You suggested a template for the concise summaries, which the
co-chairs requested - "preferably no longer than ~1000 words (it may
contain pointer to more detailed document)" - perhaps based on:

If we had consensus on a set of goals, I think that would be good.
However, as far as I know, we don't have consensus on this document.

Tony wrote this version on 2007-07-08 and it was announced a few days

There were only a handful of messages about the design goals before
this, and I recall not many since then.  I expected there would be
further revisions, and wrote some detailed material about improving
the Design Goals on 2009-07-14:

but there has been no discussion of my suggestions or further
revision of the Design Goals.

rrg-design-goals-01 was finalised after less than 179 RRG messages.
There have been 5429 messages to date.  So by this measure, the
Design Goals were finalised after only 3.3% of the RRG's total

The co-chairs have not led a discussion on the constraints due to
voluntary adoption.  Nor have they expressed their personal views on
my attempt to list the constraints.  These constraints are surely an
important basis for evaluating proposals, since no-one has suggested
we can rely on anything but voluntary adoption.

There has been some useful discussion of the constraints and a number
of people have expressed agreement with my list, both in April when I
first wrote it and in recent weeks.  No-one likes these constraints,
but I think that this support, and the lack of substantial critiques,
makes this list a worthwhile reference point when comparing proposals.

 - Robin