Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Tue, 01 December 2009 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.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 CE8DC3A6881 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:30:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 3xTezzBCYslk for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:30:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72E53A6784 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 889C56BE5CD; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:30:05 -0500 (EST)
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <20091201183005.889C56BE5CD@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:30:05 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:30:15 -0000

    > From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>

    > I wrote about this in April and updated the text after some helpful and
    > generally positive feedback:
    >   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/

I only have time for a quick skim of this (_way_ behind :-), but the list of
points generally looked pretty good to me.

My only concern was that, in toto, the entire list might be the equivalent of
asking for a car that goes 400 KPH and gets 500 MPG (or whatever the
equivalent is in kilometres per liter, sorry everyone in the rest of the
world :-), i.e. we can't have all of them at the same time. So it might be
that we'd have to prioritize some as being more important than others.

	Noel