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

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

[Audience restricted back to the RG, as this is no longer relevant to the IRSG.]


Robin,

> OK - I missed this message last week.  My point remains that there has
> been no revision to this document for over 3 years, and that my three
> attempts to discuss improvements on it, in July and December 2007, did
> not result in any significant discussion from you or anyone else.


Correct.  And it's now time that we discuss improvements on it.


> I didn't mean that you and others didn't work hard on the Design Goals
> leading up to version 01.  I meant that in the three years since, we
> should have worked harder on it.


Your criticism has been duly noted.


> My attempt at writing a Recommendation (2010-03-09):
> 
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html
> 
> contained 1830 words on design goals - about 80% more than version 01
> of the RRG Design Goals I-D.


Volume is not indicative of quality or value.


> I don't recall anyone debating these or
> suggesting they be used to revise the RRG Design Goals I-D.


Because we decided to put the design goals document down until we made further progress elsewhere.  


> If you, Lixia, and other RRG participants had continued to work on the
> Design Goals from mid-2007 then I think we would have had a much more
> comprehensive document as a basis for the rest of the RRG work.
> 
> This is all the more important now, since the RRG Report does not
> contain any proper discussion of goals and non-goals, and the 500 word
> limit on the Summaries makes it impossible for each proposal to have
> its goals and non-goals clearly described.


Criticism of history seems irrelevant, not important.


> I would support the publication of version 01 of the Design Goals I-D
> as in informational RFC, provided it carries a disclaimer that it was
> developed in the early months of the 3+ years of the RRG's scalable
> routing work, and that it was not widely discussed, cited, or revised
> since then.


That would be incorrect.  It was widely discussed.  Just not by you.


> If you want to work on a significant revision, my suggestions are
> still probably relevant:
> 
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00203.html
> 
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00733.html
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00786.html
> 
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html 17.2


Thank you for the reminders.


> Yes, but that was version 01, from July 2007.  Since then, more people
> became involved and many ideas and proposals have been developed.


Which is exactly why we wish to revise the goals.  We have learned more about what is important and what isn't.


> I understand this.  My point is that the people who seem to be
> involved in the RRG now only represent a subset of those who have been
> involved in the last few years, and who contributed to the proposals
> in the Report.


Wholly irrelevant.  The active members of the group at any given time _are_ the group.


> It appears that at this late stage of the RRG, there are too small a
> subset of the RRG contributors (as measured over 3 years by mailing
> list messages, and by their proposed architectures in the Report) to
> arrive at a document which could be properly regarded as any kind of
> reference for the proposals in the Report.

> The version 01 is so old, and has so rarely been discussed or cited,
> that it cannot properly be regarded as a basis for these proposals, in
> the absence of the proposals themselves explicitly citing it.  Any
> substantial revisions to it now would have been made well after the
> proposals and the Report was written.


Thank you for your opinion.  However, we will be moving the document forward.

Regards,
Tony