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

[Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Earlier Bill Herrin wrote:
% Derided the proposal or derided a specific step in the proposal's
% deployment plan?

Some derided the whole thing while others at the same time
derided the deployment plan.  There hasn't been an I* proposal
that did not have any objectors since I've been around -- and that
timeframe is just over 20 years now.

>  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.

% In other words, get a general consensus after excluding the outliers.
% If you're talking about consensus among operators then I can agree.

Routing system changes are also a user issue, because users are affected
(to varying degrees likely) by any proposal that has been (and also very
likely might be in future) made.

In practice, few network operators (by which I mean, site network operators,
enterprise network operators, IXs, ISPs, and inclusively any other sort of
network operator) tend to show up at I* gatherings.  This is a separate,
but very serious issue for the I*.

% I have found that folks outside of operations or whose operations
% tasks are small-scale tend to take a distressingly simplistic view of
% how tasks are sequenced in order to get from one working state to the
% next. This routinely leads to a faulty consensus, as the IPv6 debacle
% should be making painfully obvious to everyone here.

We disagree all round on the paragraph above.

1) I don't think that is why IPv6 has been called a debacle.
   In fact, different folks seem to have entirely different sets of reasons
   that those folks have called IPv6 a debacle.  Your claim is a new one
   to me.

2) I find that most folks have value to add.  I certainly learn a lot from
   talking with folks who run enterprise networks and various other
   kinds of networks at various scales.  Things which work for one kind
   of deployment often don't work for another, and scale is far from
   being the main reason one deployment works while another doesn't,
   though it is one of the several different unrelated reasons that might
   happen to matter.

Opinions aside, the Routing RG's powers are limited.  This RG might make
a recommendation to the IETF or it might not.  The IETF is not obliged to do
anything with that recommendation (other than listen).  Any standards work
will be done in IETF under IETF process rules (which are rough consensus of
whoever shows up and no special privileges for any group).  The IETF can
undertake standards work which is different from what the RG recommends,
it can undertake standardisation of multiple proposals concurrently, or
whatever else the IETF decides to do -- the RG has no powers over IETF
standardisation efforts that might follow an RG recommendation.
IRTF RGs are purely advisory in the IETF context.

Cheers,

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