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

Re: A Way Forward

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 ?
(First of all I am trying to get a discussion going so I have been a bit vague to get people to come forward...)

So, I agree with Tli/Rja that we do not want a race with multiple full-blown solutions. I do agree with Christian that we need to evaluate the solution spaces somehow. Now, what I think we need to do is to find the middle way by a) defining the solution space, which I think is more or less done b) Define the depth of the descriptions of each solution we need. Brian Carpenter have a point in that we want to have make sure they at least have enough content to prevent a long fight over that later on. This depth would be defined by a number of milestones per architectural approach.

Does this make sense?

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).

See above. That is where I want us to move right now.


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.
After discussing with Joe Abley in SF, he will resubmit the document with changed normative references and title, and let's see if we then can get consensus for that.

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.
Joe?

- kurtis -