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
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
Precedence: list

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 approa=
ch.

-- 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. =A0One comment we have heard repeated from a number of people i=
s
> 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 t=
o
> holidays (scream now if it does not work for some reason)
>
> 2/ with the above, we start contrast and compare proposals with each othe=
r.
> We need to summarize the outcome of this step into a short document of th=
e
> 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 RR=
G
> wiki. this weekend.
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>