Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

"George, Wes" <> Wed, 14 November 2012 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2872521F859E for <>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:17:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M-JNiVg9IE8Q for <>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:16:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55DE621F84C7 for <>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:16:57 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6895"; a="451176563"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 13 Nov 2012 19:16:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:16:55 -0500
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: Dae Young KIM <>, Tony Li <>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:16:58 -0500
Thread-Topic: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
Thread-Index: Ac3B+jDnnZyggiNTSdWKZujoqm2+zgAAjFVA
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033730A825PRVPEXVS15cor_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:17:00 -0000

From: [] On Behalf Of Dae Young KIM

This group seems to be too much into LIS. There practically seems to be no room for non-LIS advocates. As soon as you hint for a non-LIS, you're almost harshly ridiculed.

Why should the routing group be so much biased toward LIS which has only secondary/indirect implications on routing?
[WEG] I don't see ridicule of the idea of non-LIS. I see people trying to resurrect old arguments on the prior work of this group with points that have already been endlessly discussed with no consensus reached, and I see people responding patiently, but growing less patient as others don't get the hint that the rest of us are more than ready to move on to something new. Instead of trying to rehash the last several years, again, perhaps you can look more carefully at the problems proposed for new work in this group so that we can try to make some forward progress?
Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.