Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

Hi Khaled,

As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully 
positive) suggestions (sorry, none of which is technical):

(1) From taking a very quick look at your drafts, it may be helpful to 
have three sections at the top of the drafts that answer these 3 
questions (before you describe the new protocols):
   i) What is the problem that the draft is solving?
   ii) Why the problem cannot be cleanly solved with existing 
protocols/technology (which would normally be much cheaper than 
designing a new protocol)?
   iii) How does the new protocol/technology solves the problem?

I.e. I think that you need to first convince the community that there is 
a problem to be solved, before they will invest their time looking at a 
solution.

(2) In my brief experience, it is as important to build consensus, as it 
is to write good clear drafts.  E.g. attend IETF, meet the key folks in 
the WGs (e.g. WG chairs and the main/frequent presenters in the WGs), 
present your ideas (but again, for a presentation, I would focus on just 
the 3 questions above), try and get other individuals in different 
companies/organizations that align with your approach (and who would be 
willing to put their name on your draft(s)).  If you have vendors 
implementing these protocols, and ISPs deploying them, then that is also 
a big help.  If you can show that you have a deep technical 
understanding of the existing protocols that you intend to replace, 
along with any limitations that they have, then that will also help.

But at the moment, from a very quick look at your drafts, it is unclear 
to me why we need another new version of the IP protocol, need to 
replace BGP with a new EGP and design a new IGP.  I suspect that the 
cost to the industry to develop, standardize, and roll out these new 
protocols (including new forwarding ASICs, etc) would end up being in 
the billions of dollars.  So I'm afraid that you need to find an 
extremely compelling reason as to why this is required, and hence why 
folk should invest their limited time in these protocols.

I hope that this feedback is helpful.

Kind regards,
Rob

On 19/12/2017 20:46, Khaled Omar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed that the IETF participants gives only negative comments regarding the submitted IDs, that is good in some cases if it is true, but to ignore the positive side and the added values on every draft is something that should be changed, I always aim to find a true technical discussion on the mailing list to add something new or to correct something wrong with confidence.
>
> It's been long time on the rtgwg mailing list and didn't have any technical discussion or comments for KRP and NEP or even an official review.
>
> I believe that the IETF participants can show alot from their expertise to add, modify, or delete something from an existing draft.
>
> Of course there are all kind of people at the IETF and some of them may be interested and can make a decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Khaled
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> .
>