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

$witch <> Tue, 15 December 2009 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274C83A69D0 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:39:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.313
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZ8yZMQuy9Iu for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BCB3A6801 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:39:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE40312546B; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:46 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fFjO7kTtX7nG; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from zeta (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1180412544C; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:11 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
To: Tony Li <>, Lixia Zhang <>
References: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: $witch <>
Message-ID: <op.u4y8wfcpqr96hw@zeta>
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.10 (FreeBSD)
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: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:39:47 -0000

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:46:54 +0100, Tony Li <> wrote:

> Lixia Zhang wrote:
>>  On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Tony Li wrote:
>>  (no hat) consensus should be explicitly solicited, rather than  
>> implicitly assumed.
> Fair.  In any case, we intentionally left the document open as it was  
> subject to further revisions.
> Further, it's not clear that the status of the document is really  
> relevant to the discussion at hand.  Folks are welcome to use it if they  
> want.
> Tony

Hi, Tony, Lixia and all

consensus implies knowledge, that in turn require effort, time and so on

am used to read papers posted on list, tryng to reduce the knowledge-gap  
in "quiet-mode".

but if there is need of people saying "yes" or "no" : here i am


like to express two notices :

a) IPv4 by itself is the greatest engine that move people and companies to  
IPv6; just an example between many, many others.
one IPv4 "public" address can cost upto 2 euro/month (at least in  
berlusconi-land) while an IPv6 /48 network is (now) for free.

b) people that had not a first-hand experience of the kind of matters you  
are managing, is hardly consensus-able; but many of them will adopt new  
solutions for a wide typology of reasons and, at least, for curiosity.

so, in short and for what i understood : ok, the document is good, i agree.

wish you all RRGs a great week.



In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing  
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. RFC 1925