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

[Robin Whittle <[e-mail]>]

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
                 consensus.

                 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:

              http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/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:

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01

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
later:

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2007/msg00179.html

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:

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2007/msg00199.html

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
discussion.


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