Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for voluntary adoption

William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Sun, 19 April 2009 16:06 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Vi4rgGMoBhE1deO4bkWSLaM+GTUXb89bZ9BL41FPEQmWx4q+ZVcBBbpJWA3oo9u2os hvhfwdP40UkxYlfyJ/EbnGUktCkmNR8Ee/l6kVJbDJ0LC0osLflAbBUptl14rUqnnK+c O3Pof9yy5UMNw3by6ExX9UgKjQXEi8nbFX2jc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: wherrin@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <49EB3D82.3020306@firstpr.com.au>
References: <49EB3D82.3020306@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:07:45 -0400
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904190907t5336f71dvaebf09aed7ed3791@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for voluntary adoption
Precedence: list

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> wrote:
> The list of constraints due to the need for voluntary adoption is at:
>
>   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/

Hi Robin,

I like where you're going with this list.

I'd suggest a change to point 6. You have:

6 - The solution must be compatible with all
      existing DFZ routers. (Unless it can be shown
      that all DFZ routers can be upgraded - such as
      via a software update - by the time of
      introduction.)

First, I'd drop the "unless." There really is no "unless" here. We've
demonstrated rather conclusively that in today's Internet it is highly
impractical to try to get the 31,000 individual organizations who
compose the DFZ to deploy configuration changes ahead of that
individual organization's direct use for the change.

Then I'd change it to something like:

6 - The solution must function compatibly with existing DFZ router deployments.

Asking them to forklift their hardware is bad but they're going to do
that on a 3 to 5 year cycle anyway. Where the effort falls apart is
asking them to reprogram their systems before they're in a position to
derive a benefit from doing so.

I'd also suggest a change in point 1. You have:

  1 - The solution must provide immediate and
      compelling benefits to any new or existing
      end-user networks which adopt it, irrespective
      of how many other networks have so far adopted
      it.

I'd change "end-user networks which" to "end users who," and then
"other networks" to "others."

I know you're not a fan of the strategy B approaches, but some of them
have the prospect of being functional as soon as two participating
hosts have been upgraded regardless of what happens with the rest of
their local networks.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com  bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

[rrg] Constraints due to the need for voluntary a… Robin Whittle
Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for volunta… William Herrin
Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for volunta… Robin Whittle