Re: [RRG] Precision of the goals?

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Tony,

On 2007-04-27 17:50, Mark Townsley wrote:
> Tony Li wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > > I'm wondering how much precision there should be in the goals.
> > > Just to take the first one as an example:
> > >
> > > >    Thus, the first required goal is to provide significant improvement
> > > >    to the scalability of the routing plane.
> > >
> > > Should we be looking for a way to measure that goal? For example,
> > > by having a goal that the RIB size goes like log(N) for some measure N?
> > > Obviously that is simplistic - my point is to ask whether we
> > > want to define metrics.
> > >
> > > If the goals are only qualitative, it will be hard to judge
> > > proposals.
> >
> >
> > Well, my take on it is that we will have a hard time being 
> > quantitative about all of the goals.  How do we quantify 
> > 'deployability', for example?   And if we can't quantify all of the 
> > goals, is there really a benefit in quantifying some of them?

I think so, where it's possible. And I'm really not looking for
firm numbers necessarily - just something that allows us to review
a proposed solution other than by gut feeling.

> > This is exactly why the second paragraph of the introduction is a 
> > request to use 'good judgement'.

Yes

> > There are also other considerations, such as folks "designing to the 
> > test" and gaming the system by rigging the goals that we should avoid, 
> > IMHO.

Yes. But things like "log N rather than N^2" probably can't be gamed.

> > > BTW another point occurred to me when reading the Asbtract
> > >
> > > >     ...The RRG is designing
> > > >    an alternate architecture to meet these challenges.  This document
> > > >    consists of a prioritized list of design goals for the architecture.
> > >
> > > If we want the broader community to take any notice of the promised 
> > > design,
> > > it seems necessary to get some measure of buy-in from the broader 
> > > community
> > > for the goals, once they have taken shape.
> >
> >
> > Yes, that certainly makes sense.  Any specific requests there?  Does 
> > presenting it to INT area seems sufficient?

> That's one avenue. You could send email to int-area@ietf.org, and if 
> you'd like a slot in Chicago we could probably work that out. Also, the 
> roap directorate has a charter which includes reporting on what is 
> happening to the broader community, so perhaps consult with it as well.
>
> - Mark

I'd assume that the INT and routing areas are mainly concerned, but
personally I hope all the IETF areas will have a look - either this
is useless work, or it's truly fundamental.

    Brian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.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