Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt

[[e-mail]]

 
Robin,
I share your opinion about documenting design goals and taxonomy. I can  
imagine that getting these drafts to some end isn't work anyone likes to do. 
Who  will read them later?
Myself, I am pretty much indifferent on this.
 
By reading your referenced former emails about the terms and pilosophies of 
 CES versus CEE I halted where you wrote that CEE is more DNS-based  (some  
how).
TARA would take advantage of either philosophy: A (TARA-)locator would be  
retrieved in addition to the destination IP address from DNS, however this  
locator might be out-of-date e.g. because of roaming. The wrong locator 
however  may still have some value: The roaming host might still be within the 
same  geopatch or within some neighboring geopatch and by means of a 
well-scoped  broadcast message (that starts from the ETR denoted by the  wrong  
locator, the right ETR might be searched and determined. 
 
Will say: TARA bridges this kind of opposition (between CES and CEE).
 
Heiner
 
 
 
In einer eMail vom 01.09.2010 13:44:47 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[e-mail]:

Short  version:  I think it would make no sense to do more work on the
RRG Design Goals draft now,  since it resulted from
minimal discussion in early 2007 and has not been
discussed or revised since  then.

Likewise,  I think it would make no sense to use the
current draft as a normative reference in the  Report,
or to  pretend that the RRG completed a "list of
prioritized design goals", as required by our  Charter.


Hi Tony and Paul,

Tony, you wrote, in  part:

> The expired normative reference is the design goals  document.
> We'll be updating that and passing that up for IRSG review  as
> well.

This is the first time I am aware of you expressing  interest in
working on:

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

since 8 July  2007 when you created this version 01.

As I wrote in March this  year:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06160.html

this  version 01 resulted from very few list messages.  Your
announcement of  it was:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00183.html

The  scalable routing phase of the RRG began on 2007-03-17, with
message  29.  We are now up to message 7287.  There have been 40.5
months  since then, averaging 179 messages a month.

The Design Goals version 01  resulted from about 36 list messages,
between about 11 people - though I  guess there were off-list
discussions too.  Most of these messages  were no more than a few
sentences.  By message count, this is half a  percent of our list
discussions to date.

A week after you released  version 01, I wrote some detailed suggestions:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00203.html

thinking  there would be further discussions and a new version within
weeks.   However, nothing happened.  I wrote more suggestions in
December  2007:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00733.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00786.html

and  there was one brief response from Xiaohu Xu.

Neither you, nor (I think)  anyone else has discussed the Design Goals
on the mailing list in any  substantial fashion since July 2007.

We should have worked much harder  on this.

I think the proposals in the Report are not based to any  substantial
degree on the Design Goals version 01, since that was a very  early
document, rarely discussed or mentioned on the list.  All the  actual
material is in Section 3 - just 1047 words.

A week ago, 18  people voted (all Yes) on publication of the Report:

Tony Li,  Joel Halpern, Ran Atkinson, Mohamed Boucadair, Fred Templin
Wes  George, Klaas Wierenga, K. Sriram, Robin Whittle, Ruediger Volk,
Hannu Flinck, David Williamson, Patrick Frejborg, Stephen Strowes,
Shane Amante, Bruce Curtis and DY (Dae Young Kim).

These people wrote  about 39% of the list messages to date.  These 18
people do not  include anyone from the LISP team, or proponents of
about half the 14  proposals.

Even if these 18 people, and whoever else is still engaged  in the RRG,
did agree on a revised Design Goals document, it would not be  a
document which was used in the preparation of the proposals.

Each  proposal should, I think, contain an explicit discussion of its
goals and  non-goals.  Ivip has 18 pages of goals and non-goals:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-whittle-ivip-arch-04

Due to the 500  word limit on the Summary for each proposal, the RRG
Report can't be  expected to convey the full set of goals and non-goals
for each  proposal.

Rather than pretend that all the proposals referred to the  Design
Goals draft, it would be better to let the reader delve into  each
proposal's documentation regarding goals and non-goals.

Another  requirement of the Charter was to produce a taxonomy.    Bill
Herrin worked towards this and I tried to refine it in  2009:

http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/rrgarch/

A second  attempt at a taxonomy was the Core Edge Separation (CES) vs.
Core Edge  Elimination (CEE) distinction:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html
(17.3.3)

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06110.html

Though  at least one person supported writing up the CES/CEE
distinction material  as an RFC, I have not had time to do it, and the
distinction and  terminology has been rejected by some people,
including Ran  Atkinson.

-  Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing  list
[e-mail]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg