RE: [RRG] Are host-stack modifications allowed or disallowed ?

[Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Earlier Bill Herrin wrote:
% The point of that is not to figure out "the" way that the solution
% will be deployed. The point is to verify that there is at least one
% way the solution could be deployed that doesn't contain steps your
% peers deride as "totally unrealistic." 'Cause if you've got folks
% saying, "Nobody in their right minds would behave the way you posit,"
% they're probably close enough to correct that your deployment won't
% happen.

I applaud the notion that folks should consider economic considerations,
incremental deployability, etc.

However, for virtually any IETF proposal in the past 10 years, there
have been at least some folks ("peers") who derided that proposal as
"totally unrealistic".  Despite this, a number of those proposals have
been deployed at significant scale.

So I would narrow your constraint a fair bit.  If a reasonably large
set of folks view a proposal's deployment model as viable, that
is sufficient.

There are very good reasons that the IETF has a "rough consensus" metric,
rather than a "unanimity" metric.  Similarly, experience with the IRTF NSRG
and its "unanimity" metric indicates that is not the right metric for an
IRTF RG either.

If the metric really is that no one disagrees with the viability of a given
deployment model, then we should all go home now, because
there is (virtually) always some dissent within the IETF (or IRTF).

Yours,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com


--
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