Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification

[Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>]

Hi,

On 2008-4-18, at 15:11, ext Tony Li wrote:
> |I hate to bring up the R-word, but I think before we can get to a
> |consensus on architectural or technical directions for a solution, we
> |need some consensus on what the requirements are for the
> |architecture.
> |What are the goals and non-goals?
>
> Please see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01

I must admit that I don't follow the RRG very closely very often (it  
requires a full-time commitment), but I don't remember the discussion  
around this document resulting in a consensus. But I may be wrong, and  
RGs don't need to operate by consensus. In any event, the document is  
definitely is a good start.

I'm wondering if anything more needs to be said with regards to the  
impact that changing the routing architecture has on L4/L7 protocols  
(my personal pet peeve), whether it is desired that existing L3  
protocols be usable as a starting point for implementation and  
deployment, whether improving O&M of the routing subsystem is  
desirable, whether the current weak statement is really what we want  
to require from a routing revamp, etc.?

Lars

--
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