On Apr 18, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Lars Eggert wrote:
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-01I 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),
personally I agree that's a very important thing to get a clear understanding (I have some half-baked ideas here), though I dont see it belonging to the requirement doc.
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.?
this is a good list. Most (if not all) of them were discussed during the IAB Routing and Addressing workshop (take a look of RFC4984 if anyone interested)
Lixia -- 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