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

Re: A Way Forward


On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 04:26 America/Montreal, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I have to say that at least three stark contrasts -- that advanced by
tli/rja suggesting a new process, that advanced by Christian Huitema
(and apparently attractive to you) suggesting a parallelization of labour,
and that advanced by Ohta-san, suggesting all-out warfare, each
have their alluring qualities (and some drawbacks), as well as considerable
history within other parts of the IETF.
I agree on this observation, but note that I would like to combine
the proposals of tli/rja and Christian.

Kurt,

Well that would not be the same as what tli/rja have proposed.
Earlier today you claimed to agree with the process approach
proposed by tli/rja.  Now you say you want something different,
though it is unclear (to me at least) what you want to do differently.

I'm fairly confused by your various notes of the past few days.

Maybe you could start over again and outline what process approach
that you are proposing that the WG follow ?


There is also an unstated but discussed-in-the-background
approach of developing consensus over a document stating that:
	
	- scalable site-multihoming IS in the critical path of deployment
	- the problem is not currently well-understood within the IETF
	- there are many ideas about the problem, and about its solution
	- there are no known working-code/tested solutions
	- there is no agreed way to evaluate such solutions properly anyway
		- however, some are worth development & experimentation
		  (even those that would require a fundamental revisiting of
		  the architectural underpinnings of IPv6 by the Internet Area)
		- some are plainly stupid
	- "we tried and failed"

I think that a document like to above would be useful,
but I do not see what the road after this would be.
I think that everything from smd, except the last bullet, is pretty
widely agreed upon here and would be worth documenting.

The last bullet ("we tried and failed") is too pessimistic for my
own view right now, hence the desire to try a top-down cooperative
approach (starting with finding an agreeable architectural approach).

I'd also like to see some requirements document get sorted out and
published, so that we understand what issues we are trying to address.
One possible way to sort it out would be for the document editor to hold
an organised on-list document review section by section, with several days
to discuss the current contents of each section. Other approaches
might also work to sort through such a document.

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com