[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification
On 2008-4-18, at 15:11, ext Tony Li wrote:
|I hate to bring up the R-word, but I think before we can get to a
|consensus on architectural or technical directions for a solution, we
|need some consensus on what the requirements are for the
|What are the goals and non-goals?
Please see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01
I must admit that I don't follow the RRG very closely very often (it
requires a full-time commitment), but I don't remember the discussion
around this document resulting in a consensus. But I may be wrong, and
RGs don't need to operate by consensus. In any event, the document is
definitely is a good start.
I'm wondering if anything more needs to be said with regards to the
impact that changing the routing architecture has on L4/L7 protocols
(my personal pet peeve), whether it is desired that existing L3
protocols be usable as a starting point for implementation and
deployment, whether improving O&M of the routing subsystem is
desirable, whether the current weak statement is really what we want
to require from a routing revamp, etc.?
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg