Re: [rrg] The RRG's capacity to handle detail is not up to the task of designing architectural enhancements for v4/v6 Internets

"t.petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com> Thu, 01 July 2010 11:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfa@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0789D3A684B for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.51
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.289, BAYES_50=0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.219]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kvV4OoBP48mE for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c2bthomr02.btconnect.com (c2bthomr02.btconnect.com [213.123.20.120]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A2B3A68ED for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pc6 (host86-145-197-30.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.197.30]) by c2bthomr02.btconnect.com with SMTP id MKI87597; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:49:06 +0100 (BST)
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Neutral-1, source=Queried, refid=0001.0A0B0302.4C2C80B2.00DC, actions=tag
Message-ID: <002401cb190a$87f2e140$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
References: <96BB0246-5DED-48B4-833D-22272E37B522@gmail.com> <4C24C45E.9030707@firstpr.com.au><4C24E1F0.1040509@cisco.com> <1207B0CA-CD33-44F7-84BC-AA64079F38D7@tony.li> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006252151170.29897@stoner.jakma.org><94AA0C0A-71FC-4CA2-BAAB-9F0BFC740162@tony.li> <4C257C67.2000000@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:25:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr02.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0203.4C2C80C2.00AA, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2009-07-20 21:54:04, dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27, mode=single engine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Subject: Re: [rrg] The RRG's capacity to handle detail is not up to the task of designing architectural enhancements for v4/v6 Internets
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:49:22 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Whittle" <rw@firstpr.com.au>
To: "RRG" <rrg@irtf.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:04 AM

> Hi Tony,
> 
> In "Re: [rrg] RG Last Call: ILNP document set", thanks for pointing out:
> 
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5743#section-2.1
> 
> Since I understand there is consensus support for publishing the ILNP
> IDs as IRTF RFCs and since it is a formal requirement:
> 
>   There must be a statement in the abstract identifying it as the
>   product of the RG.
> 
> I withdraw my request that the statement be removed.
> 
> > The constraints are pretty much set forth in RFC 5743. In
> > addition, documents should reflect something that the group has
> > already discussed.
> > 
> > Further, we strongly would like to get RG consensus that the
> > document is in a state where it should be published.  Note that
> > this is not an endorsement of the content, but consensus that
> > the quality of the document is sufficient to be a product of
> > the RG.
> 
> Given the evident constraints on RRG participants reading and
> commenting meaningfully on anything with substantial detail, I think
> the ILNP IDs are short and simple enough to achieve such consensus.
> 
> I would not attempt to write up Ivip as RRG RFCs, since there is no
> evidence that sufficient RRG folk have the time or inclination to
> read and comment on something of Ivip's length and detail.
> 
> You and many other regular RRG contributors have had three years to
> read and comment on Ivip - and you have not done so.
> 
> Distributed Real Time Mapping has been perfectly well explained, with
> nice diagrams:
> 
>   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/drtm/
> 
> for 3 months - and no-one has commented on it.

<snip> 

> At future years I intend to write up Ivip and DRTM more thoroughly
> and hopefully write some code for a test network.  Until then, please
> see:
> 
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06823.html
> 
> in response to Tom Petch (msg06831) regarding his suggestion I write
> RFCs for the CES/CEE distinction and for DRTM.

I know; a request for an RFC is not the same as a detailed critique of the
I-D but it almost counts as a comment on the I-D.

Tom Petch
 
>  - Robin