[rrg] Revising the Design Goals I-D to be an RFC

Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> Thu, 02 September 2010 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rw@firstpr.com.au>
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 9444B3A69FC for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.663
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327]
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 9cEoRLoIc1qx for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gair.firstpr.com.au (gair.firstpr.com.au [150.101.162.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF823A6A3A for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.6] (wira.firstpr.com.au [10.0.0.6]) by gair.firstpr.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6ED01759E1; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 00:12:44 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <4C7FB0DD.8080308@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:12:45 +1000
From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Organization: First Principles
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rrg@irtf.org
References: <4C79DB08.5050107@joelhalpern.com> <p0624082cc8a37d3afb65@[10.20.30.158]> <27DFA8B7-630B-4E84-B6B9-8262D6947686@tony.li> <4C7E3CB0.6030409@firstpr.com.au> <E6681013-9889-46CB-B705-391CECEA8CEA@tony.li> <4C7F0B27.80908@firstpr.com.au> <6B57F014-7543-4CD5-8D5E-5AF747624E41@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <6B57F014-7543-4CD5-8D5E-5AF747624E41@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [rrg] Revising the Design Goals I-D to be an RFC
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, 02 Sep 2010 14:12:21 -0000

Short version:   I support improving the Design Goals and publishing
                 it as an RFC.

                 I think it is important to mention on the list the
                 difficulties the RRG has had, since enquiring minds
                 in the future will want to know how the Report and
                 Design Goals RFCs came into being.

Was:

  Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt



Hi Tony,

I wrote my first attempt (msg00203) to improve the Design Goals I-D,
three days after you announced it on the list.  I-Ds are drafts and
involve an implicit request for improvements.  As far as I can see,
there's nothing you wrote to the list, or which you mentioned in the
2007-07-29 meeting (according to the minutes), about not wanting any
input on this I-D.

Scanning the list archives to the end of 2007, I see no mention from
you or Lixia that you were not interested in improving the Design
Goals I-D.  On 2007-12-03, you indicate to Russ White that you are
interested in input on this I-D:

   The design goals document captures some technical issues that we
   deem worthy of discussion. If that seems insufficient, we're
   certainly open to proposals.

So I had no reason to believe that my msg00203, and two others in
December 2007 (msg00733 and msg00786) were not appropriate to
furthering the work of the RRG.


>> OK - I missed this message last week.  My point remains that there has
>> been no revision to this document for over 3 years, and that my three
>> attempts to discuss improvements on it, in July and December 2007, did
>> not result in any significant discussion from you or anyone else.
> 
> Correct.  And it's now time that we discuss improvements on it.

I think it has always been time.


>> I didn't mean that you and others didn't work hard on the Design Goals
>> leading up to version 01.  I meant that in the three years since, we
>> should have worked harder on it.
> 
> Your criticism has been duly noted.

Thanks.


>> My attempt at writing a Recommendation (2010-03-09):
>>
>>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html
>>
>> contained 1830 words on design goals - about 80% more than version 01
>> of the RRG Design Goals I-D.
> 
> Volume is not indicative of quality or value.

Sure, but if you think what I wrote was sub-standard, irrelevant or
had any other failings, it would have been good - and still would be
good - if you provided constructive criticism.

I think you sometimes take your preference for brevity too far in your
own communications, at least in respect of the mailing list.  I don't
recall you writing anything about why you are uninterested in, or
disagree with, what I wrote in msg06219 or in the three 2007
contributions.  Nor can I recall any message you or Lixia wrote about
why the Design Goals should not have been discussed from mid-2007
until now.


>> I don't recall anyone debating these or
>> suggesting they be used to revise the RRG Design Goals I-D.
> 
> Because we decided to put the design goals document down until we made further progress elsewhere.  

I follow this mailing list pretty closely, and I don't recall you
stating such a decision before.


>> If you, Lixia, and other RRG participants had continued to work on the
>> Design Goals from mid-2007 then I think we would have had a much more
>> comprehensive document as a basis for the rest of the RRG work.
>>
>> This is all the more important now, since the RRG Report does not
>> contain any proper discussion of goals and non-goals, and the 500 word
>> limit on the Summaries makes it impossible for each proposal to have
>> its goals and non-goals clearly described.
> 
> Criticism of history seems irrelevant, not important.


Design goals are crucially important.

The proposals were made with only the quickly developed, and not
further discussed, Design Goals 01.  Proponents didn't necessarily
accept those goals.  They didn't have space in your 500 word format to
explain each proposal's design goals.

I think this should be known to anyone who reads the Report.  Some
people who read it will make important decisions, based in part on the
Report - so they need to know about any difficulties in the
preparation of the Report.

These include:

  Only a quickly developed set of Design Goals, which were not
  the subject of any on-list two or more way discussion since July
  2007.

  Your and Lixia's attempts to stop discussion of "proposals"
  (candidate architectures) for much of 2008 and 2009, in favour
  of "architectural" discussion (as distinguished from "engineering"
  or "proposals").  Yet I don't recall you leading by example in the
  type of discussion you wanted us to have.

  Your lack of interest in discussing the constraints imposed by the
  need for widespread voluntary adoption:

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

  What I believe is your lack of interest in the last year or two in
  discussing in detail any proposal other than ILNP.

  Your and Lixia's apparent misunderstanding of some proposals:

    The co-chairs do not understand Ivip and some other architectures
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06373.html
    (2010-03-27).

  The 500 word limit on Summaries, Critiques etc. - and the inability
  for multiple critiques to be included in the Report.  For instance,
  the 500 word version of my critique of LISP is in the Report,
  probably because I wrote it before Noel Chiappa wrote his
  (msg05747).

  The general pattern of proponents of proposed architectures
  failing to critique - or show they have read and understand - other
  architectures (msg06285).

  Failure to correct or acknowledge problems in the way ILNP is
  represented in the Report (msg07254 & msg07185).

So I think the history of the RRG is important, and worth mentioning
on the list for the benefit of people today and in the future.


>> I would support the publication of version 01 of the Design Goals I-D
>> as in informational RFC, provided it carries a disclaimer that it was
>> developed in the early months of the 3+ years of the RRG's scalable
>> routing work, and that it was not widely discussed, cited, or revised
>> since then.
> 
> That would be incorrect.  It was widely discussed.  Just not by you.

It was not revised in 3 years, and I don't recall it being widely
discussed on the mailing list.


>> Yes, but that was version 01, from July 2007.  Since then, more people
>> became involved and many ideas and proposals have been developed.
> 
> Which is exactly why we wish to revise the goals.  We have learned more 
> about what is important and what isn't.

We have been learning continually - and I think the Design Goals I-D
could and should have been improved on a continual basis.


>> I understand this.  My point is that the people who seem to be
>> involved in the RRG now only represent a subset of those who have been
>> involved in the last few years, and who contributed to the proposals
>> in the Report.
> 
> Wholly irrelevant.  The active members of the group at any given time _are_ the group.

Sure, but let's not pretend that the Report, most of which was
finalised in early 2010, was based substantially on Design Goals 01,
or on any later revision we make in late 2010.

Enquiring minds in the future will want to know why development of the
Design Goals was halted so early.


>> It appears that at this late stage of the RRG, there are too small a
>> subset of the RRG contributors (as measured over 3 years by mailing
>> list messages, and by their proposed architectures in the Report) to
>> arrive at a document which could be properly regarded as any kind of
>> reference for the proposals in the Report.
> 
>> The version 01 is so old, and has so rarely been discussed or cited,
>> that it cannot properly be regarded as a basis for these proposals, in
>> the absence of the proposals themselves explicitly citing it.  Any
>> substantial revisions to it now would have been made well after the
>> proposals and the Report was written.
> 
> Thank you for your opinion.  However, we will be moving the document forward.

I fully support improving the Design Goals and publishing it as an RFC
- as long as the history of its development, and how out of sync it
has been with the main body of RRG work, is clearly stated in the RFC.

  - Robin