Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Mon, 12 November 2012 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720EE21F86CB for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:33:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gw7MOLs8imRW for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAD921F862E for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.12]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NfNy1k00J0FhH24A1hZhUy; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:33:41 +0000
Received: from [10.155.35.198] ([128.107.239.233]) by omta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NhXW1k00E52qHCY8UhXYP1; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:31:39 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <20121112161536.4BC8418C0C3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:31:30 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <99F58C68-2C89-40C8-A655-1B5AF72E810E@tony.li>
References: <20121112161536.4BC8418C0C3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:33:46 -0000

On Nov 12, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:

> From the engineering
> perspective, a design which requires changes to all hosts is, IMO, a
> non-starter.


Why?

Now that upgrades are automated, the work effort involved for the average end user is not particularly high.  And the lifetime of end hosts seems to be somewhat limited, especially now that the bulk of the end hosts have become smart phones.

And if we subscribe to your proposal that we have and end-goal that's a clean architecture, then it seems like having a natural fit between the end host and the architecture is only natural.

Tony