Re: [rrg] feature comparison chart, conscripted peer review ?

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 15 February 2010 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 0D9B93A7508 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:06:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 OPhzpCvHppAn for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2C93A687C for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsMAAJXVeEuQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACDBZgXFQEBFiQGHaUZiBAqjiyBMIEPgUFbBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,476,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="3457352"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2010 12:36:27 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-33.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-103-33.cisco.com [10.61.103.33]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1FD7r4L005796; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:07:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4B794728.7000608@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:07:52 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: k claffy <kc@caida.org>
References: <20100213055714.GA93359@rommie.caida.org> <20100214171903.GA9520@rommie.caida.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100214171903.GA9520@rommie.caida.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] feature comparison chart, conscripted peer review ?
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: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:06:26 -0000

K.C.,

On 2/14/10 6:19 PM, k claffy wrote:
> sorry, someone pointed out a typo in (2) below;
> i meant to suggest
>
>   (2) i understand such a chart is likely blocked on more meat
>   filled in on critiques/rebuttal/counterpoints for each
>   proposal.  has the wg considered asking all proposal submitters
>   to submit critiques of at least three (or some N) other
>   proposals, including estimating the corresponding lines of
>   a feature comparison matrix?
>
> this suggestion is based on the imbalance in the
> current draft between ideas-submitted and 
> ideas-rigorously-evaluated. i suspect the IETF 
> needs more of the latter, which it doesn't look 
> like natural WG forces are going to produce.
>   


I think this is a great (and necessary) idea to give authority to the
work people are doing.

Eliot