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

Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU> Fri, 11 December 2009 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>
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 07EB928C0E3 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:54:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 FS5ZYKxpca2C for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6E328C0E1 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BC339E80FF for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:53:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69zfRaO5o-g8 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:53:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (cpe-98-151-23-234.socal.res.rr.com [98.151.23.234]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3880D39E80F8 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:53:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU>
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>
To: rrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:53:54 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: [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: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:54:08 -0000

sorry folks, day job crisis delayed this msg for a few days.

Tony and I have had some discussions on how to collect the  
recommendation document.  One comment we have heard repeated from a  
number of people is that our recommendation should document the pros  
and cons of different approaches, which can be very valuable, even  
independent from whichever specific recommendations we may end up with.

1/ To steer efforts toward that goal, we would like each proposal to  
make a concise summary, preferably no longer than ~1000 words (it may  
contain pointer to more detailed document), that describes the key  
ideas of the proposal of exactly how it addresses routing scalability  
issue, where is its cost, and where is its gain.

Given this message is getting out late, we would like to extend the  
submission time from 12/15 to 12/22, before people drift away from  
work to holidays (scream now if it does not work for some reason)

2/ with the above, we start contrast and compare proposals with each  
other.
We need to summarize the outcome of this step into a short document of  
the pros and cons for each proposal.

Tony, please help add things that I may have lost from memory

Lixia
PS; it is top on my todo list to get all the step-forward proposals on  
RRG wiki. this weekend.