[rrg] draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01 lacks suggested improvements

Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> Sun, 01 March 2009 04:47 UTC

Message-ID: <49AA1313.2000409@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:46:11 +1100
From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Organization: First Principles
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [rrg] draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01 lacks suggested improvements
Precedence: list

Hi Tony,

Your new draft (26 February):

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01

does not include any of the changes and additions I suggested on 24
February:

 Ivip map-encap & MHF in draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-00
 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04535.html

You expanded the first two taxonomies:

  3.1 A Mechanism Taxonomy
  3.2 A Functional Taxonomy

but changed only a few words in the third:

  3.3 The Herrin Taxonomy

as can be seen from the Diff1 link from the current version.

You added a note about the taxonomies that "Section 3.3 is the
most useful so far and is where we will continue to focus our efforts."

I had suggested that if you do not expect a taxonomy to be complete
that you either delete it or indicate clearly that each such taxonomy
is incomplete.


On 17 February (message 4520) I had suggested an addition to the 3.1
taxonomy to make it more complete.

You wrote here:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04533.html

     The taxonomy in 3.1 is inadequate and not particularly helpful
     and not really worth further refinement.

yet in version 01 you refined and extended 3.1 somewhat, without
including my suggested addition.


Your initial response to my suggested changes to 3.3, and my reply:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04546.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04547.html


So far, my efforts to improve the draft have had little or no effect
 - and after reading your message 4546 I am unclear on what reasons
you might have for not accepting my suggestions or for not discussing
them in meaningful detail.

Maybe you plan to include or discuss these suggestions in detail -
but have not yet had time to do so.

I have made a page to track what I think is currently missing from
the draft of our forthcoming recommendations:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/rec/


  - Robin

[rrg] draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01 lacks sugg… Robin Whittle