RE: [RRG] RRG process clarification

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

|> Consideration of economic principles is, IMVHO, important
|> to arrive at the right theory. 
|
|Christian, yes economics are important and, IMO, the basic 
|directional guidelines to the implementers should come from 
|the designers. E.g. economic questions persistently surface on 
|various IETF lists (see the latest p2p workshop announcement) 
|while officially IETF does not comment on such. RRG seem to 
|have more leniency here but firstly RRG may want to have a 
|consensus on whether economics become a part of the 
|discussion. On my side I would be glad to discuss on and/or 
|off list, whichever helps.


Discussion of economics are certainly relevant and welcome.  From a
pragmatic point of view, it's helpful to understand the implications of what
we're doing.  However, IMVHO, perfect economic parity is a non-goal.  For
one thing, it may not be achievable.  For another, it may pervert the
technical solution into a non-workable result.  We've seen entire countries
collapse as a result of that effect, so let's not repeat it here.  Finally,
what is economically perfect today is unlikely to retain its economic
balance in the long term.  Change that happens and disturbs the economics
should not cause the architecture to become unworkable.

Again, we should focus on our primary requirements.

Regards,
Tony


--
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