Short version:    Lots of messages on precisely defining terms which
                  I think do not need it.

                  A year ago the "Summary and Analysis" documents
                  for LISP, APT, Ivip, Six/One Router, TRRP and
                  some others were completed - but the co-chairs
                  have never discussed them.


I stayed out of this discussion and vote because I believe the words
Identifier, Locator and Address don't need and shouldn't be expected
to have precise definitions - because they are frequently used in
ways which depend on the conceptual framework of the author.
Likewise, I think it would not be productive to try to try to make
all religious leaders agree on the definition of "God" - or for
psychologists to agree on the precise meaning of "The Unconscious".

Not all words have such context dependent meanings.  AFAIK
"Namespace" only seems to have one meaning:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/namespace/

and I couldn't find a single debate about its meaning, or any IETF
people who felt the need to define its meaning.

Bill wrote, quoting Tony:

>>> Again, the poll can be found here: http://doodle.com/9sybb8dmk5phvp99
>> The poll has now closed.  The ayes have it, 10 to 4 (71%), which is
>> reasonably clear consensus.  The definitions listed are hereby adopted.
> 
> 10 people would have to hum awfully loud to form a consensus among the
> crowd RRG draws at the meetings.

Of the ~147 messages in this discussion, the breakdown of frequency
per author (18 authors) is something like this, with Tony's 33
messages first:

  33  23  19  18  11   9   8   4   3   2   1
                                   3   2   1
                                   3   2   1
                                   3

14 votes may indicate a lack of interest in the debate or a lack of
confidence that a No would make any difference.

I think the co-chairs have a difficult task getting consensus on
anything, and when they do, since there is no signed-up constituency
I guess it could be hard to make a decision.  Opinions weighted by
effort expended by the author?  Anonymous votes, where a lurker's
opinion counts as much as that of someone who wrote pages of
thoughtful material?

I think the definitions are not bad:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04724.html

but I don't see how these help us solve the scalable routing problem.

This is not some mathematical problem awaiting solution via profound
insights, perhaps based on semantics developed with penetrating rigour.

It is a problem whose solutions are tightly bound by the need for
compatibility with all existing hosts and most existing routers - and
by the need to ensure immediate benefits for early adopters, since
the solution will only work if it is voluntarily adopted by most
end-user networks which want multihoming, portability etc.

I will sit out the next debate too: "Properties of identifiers".


It is a year since we (those who made detailed proposals - AKA the
Charter's "candidate designs") wrote our 8 page "Summary and
Analysis" documents as requested by the co-chairs.  These are linked
to from:

 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/RoutingResearchGroup

I just updated the Ivip one today - but it is now 17 pages, in part
because it now has to cover Modified Header Forwarding:

   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/Ivip-summary.pdf

The co-chairs have never commented on or supported discussion of
these.  I think this would be an interesting and productive discussion.

  - Robin