Re: [rrg] feature comparison chart, conscripted peer review ?
k claffy <kc@caida.org> Sun, 14 February 2010 17:17 UTC
Return-Path: <kc@caida.org>
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 510123A79DD for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:17:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 AOQBIMAzvqpT for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from caida.org (rommie.caida.org [192.172.226.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775C73A72CE for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by caida.org (Postfix, from userid 2000) id A399EB940; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:19:03 -0800
From: k claffy <kc@caida.org>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20100214171903.GA9520@rommie.caida.org>
References: <20100213055714.GA93359@rommie.caida.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100213055714.GA93359@rommie.caida.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
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: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:17:37 -0000
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. k On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 09:57:14PM -0800, k claffy wrote: robin thanks for these "Comparison charts of: CES: LISP-ALT/NERD, APT, Ivip, TRRP, TIDR, IRON-RANGER and Six/One Router. CEE: GSE, GLI-Split, ILNP, Name-Based Sockets." two process questions: (1) is there any plan for the RRG recommendation to include a more complete version of such a matrix chart of proposals vs rrg-documented design goals, with a pointer to enough explanation of how well the proposal meets the design goal, or outstanding complications? your charts are the first step i've seen in this direction, but a more comprehensive comparison chart would be incredibly useful. (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 other proposals, including estimating the corresponding lines of a feature comparison matrix? there is so much immense and impressive work going into this process, i'm just wondering out loud about structural assists that might improve clarity of the result and maybe even the efficiency of getting there. k _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg