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

$witch <a.spinella@rfc1925.net> Tue, 15 December 2009 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <a.spinella@rfc1925.net>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274C83A69D0 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:39:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZ8yZMQuy9Iu for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from joy.rfc1925.net (static-217-133-230-42.clienti.tiscali.it [217.133.230.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BCB3A6801 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:39:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by joy.rfc1925.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE40312546B; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:46 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc1925.net
Received: from joy.rfc1925.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (joy.rfc1925.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fFjO7kTtX7nG; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from zeta (unknown [194.246.127.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: a.spinella@rfc1925.net) by joy.rfc1925.net (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 <tony.li@tony.li>, Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU> <5bc37fd40912110555qf59abdcu7fa1c514774649c3@mail.gmail.com> <4B2578CC.1020105@firstpr.com.au> <4B26660E.5020109@tony.li> <BAF9298C-4167-4D3C-891F-4F0710EB441A@cs.ucla.edu> <4B275B0E.3060309@tony.li>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:30:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: $witch <a.spinella@rfc1925.net>
Message-ID: <op.u4y8wfcpqr96hw@zeta>
In-Reply-To: <4B275B0E.3060309@tony.li>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.10 (FreeBSD)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:39:47 -0000

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:46:54 +0100, Tony Li <tony.li@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


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


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.

Alessandro


---

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