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

["Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
> 
>