[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WG next steps


On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 12:26 America/Montreal, Thomas Narten wrote:
- Some of the proposals on the table involve fairly significant
  architectural changes to the Internet protocols. But this WG does
  not have a mandate to, for example, go modify TCP. If we are to work
  on solutions that place signficant requirements on other WGs, we'll
  need the cooperation of other areas and WGs. One of the things that
  will help getting that cooperation is that these proposals satisfy
  the multihoming needs we (as a group) believe exist today and into
  the future, and (perhaps) that proposals which do not involve these
  changes do not.  For that we likely do need a proper, reviewed reqs
  doc to make reference to.
A reasonable approach to the above situation would be for the IAB
to create a new IRTF Research Group on the topic to permit such
architectural work to be done holistically. The output of such a group would,
of course, need to be brought back to the IETF for consideration
before it could become any sort of standard.

I believe the IAB would look favourably on such a proposal to create an
IRTF RG, if a proposal were presented in a well organised manner.
The proposal would have to be sufficiently different from the NSRG,
which examined an overlapping set of issues, of course.

- some of the possible directions need qite a bit more fleshing out,
  before folk can really begin to evaluation whether the direction
  makes sense. While early proponents surely believe it is obvious to
  produce work in a particular space, we will need signficant
  community buy-in if we are to actually succeed in deploying
  things. The more complex the proposal, or the more changes that are
  required to implementations to make them work (especially if they
  involve upgrades in *all* IPv6 devices!), the more work it will be
  convincing the relevant communities to support the changes. Thus, we
  need a way of starting work in some directions, but also have clear
  checkpoints that will allow us to assess progress and periodically
  revalidate that it continues to make sense to keep working in a
  particular direction.

See above.

Note that running code could be developed inside or outside the IETF.
Having running code might help persuade folks that a proposed approach
is viable.  Experimental computer science is a fine thing here.

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com