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

Patrick Frejborg <pfrejborg@gmail.com> Fri, 11 December 2009 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <pfrejborg@gmail.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 CF5D83A687E for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:56:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 pnoaLm2QxZiR for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:56:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f177.google.com (mail-yw0-f177.google.com [209.85.211.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46093A67E2 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:56:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywh7 with SMTP id 7so999071ywh.24 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:55:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0KQQOXlWPj/LDJb9RRmBjbXRIBxuxji0EICpUohc8JU=; b=PaIXTwvyBSDZpbGk/5X/KeEYRqVUa+Hy3dhW5VudO/zi/WKB2Xh2VdRNpOpY8W4VNx S63KO7GiIKzb0yqMEkNh1h59+E23RvElvAv5fVwrayuUzzwyh/t7LzJtsi6rvd1ZP5Vu nKRXPwHgdG/xUCvGe/BC41GevibgmD2pgIS1M=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xhnRcE/SuVdh0qV2DkAlcvjNqLh64rv8a8/mW6IHWTlKzVPzHCI4k7x7VCAAw0hWDK SH5x4zEayn3tIMLk2u5IvQyqwca8v51Mz/oLzkkbJDF98qf0zsdtjeT2eFf0zeyxaUl+ 67EMbgq4ccLKHZG/c+e5+/3GWuGfePQlVmAfA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.147.27 with SMTP id z27mr2266533ann.22.1260539748509; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:55:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU>
References: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:55:48 +0200
Message-ID: <5bc37fd40912110555qf59abdcu7fa1c514774649c3@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick Frejborg <pfrejborg@gmail.com>
To: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:56:03 -0000

Hi Lixia,

it is going to be tight for me with the holidays around the corner
(and other projects) - it would be easier if you provide a template
with titles e.g. based upon
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01
Then we could fill explanations of how the proposal is dealing with
each issue and in the end perhaps there is some additional field where
the author can highlight some other issues that don't have an own
title.
And it would be easier for you to compare the proposals.

But this is only a suggestion, don't know how others feel about this approach.

-- patte

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>