Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Balaji,

And what happens normally here is that RG/WG chairs discuss and come to some decision.

However, given the tone of your previous private email, I'm not sure that collaboration within either IETF or IRTF is appropriate.

Regards,
Tony


On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote:

> Hi Balaji-
> 
>  You're right that perception is by nature subjective.  Tony may have looked at the fact that you're proposing BGP changes and decided it was operations; I looked at it and saw that the bulk of your draft was about algorithms and graph theory and that it looked rather undeployable and decided it was research-y. I'm fine with discussion of the draft continuing on RTGWG (not that I have any power to stop it anyways), and you might want to try to answer the points I raised in my first mail as part of the discussion you'd like to spark.
> 
> 
> eric
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:54 PM
>> To: Eric Osborne (eosborne); [e-mail]
>> Cc: Shankar Raman M J; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03
>> 
>> Including Tony Li
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 	Dear Eric,
>> 
>> 	Here is an attempt that we made to get this draft and a few others
>> entered for consideration in the IRTF.
>> 
>> 	Tony Li responded as follows...
>> 
>> 	So, the first question is whether or not this counts as research or
>> engineering.  Glancing at it, it looks to me like you're on the engineering side
>> of the world.  It would then make sense to spark an email discussion on the
>> rtgwg mailing list.
>> 
>> 	You have on the other hand branded this as research.
>> 
>> 	Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a question of
>> subjectivity ?
>> 
>> 	Your opinion would be most useful.
>> 
>> 	thanks and regards,
>> 	balaji venkat
>> 
>> 	On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne)
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 		Some comments:
>> 
>> 		1)  This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as
>> your Acknowledgements indicate.  This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in
>> the IETF as the IETF is not a research journal.  To move towards
>> standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stating that
>> the problem you solve is  a real problem for them, and that your solution is
>> both effective and deployable in practice.  Note that this support has more
>> heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research department.
>> Do you have such support?
>> 
>> 		2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation
>> between ASes, including inter-AS TE LSPs.  You may want to investigate the
>> operational feasibility of this cooperation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 		eric
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 		> -----Original Message-----
>> 		> From: [e-mail] [mailto:rtgwg-
>> [e-mail]] On Behalf
>> 		> Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami
>> 		> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM
>> 		> To: [e-mail]
>> 		> Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina
>> 		> Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-
>> 03
>> 		>
>> 		> Dear all,
>> 		>
>> 		> We would like the working group members opinion and
>> comments on the
>> 		> following draft.
>> 		>
>> 		> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-
>> psp-03
>> 		>
>> 		> Please feel free to comment on the same.
>> 		>
>> 		> thanks and regards,
>> 		> balaji venkat
>> 
>> 
>> 
>