RE: [RRG] Conceptual vs. specific - another discussion list?

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

Hi Robin,
 

|   Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6.  It may or
|   may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide
|   a path forward for IPv6.
|
|Lixia and Tony, does this mean that it would be out of scope to have
|even high-level architectural discussions concerning a potential
|solution which would be applied soon to IPv4 and later to IPv6?


Not at all.  As we stated, solutions that apply for v4 and v6 are certainly
within scope.


|Likewise, does this mean that discussions about migration of large
|numbers of users to IPv6, or to a future significantly modified
|version of IPv6, are out of scope?  My guess is they would be, and
|would disrupt the discussions you want to focus on.


Yes, you're correct.  We've spent 15 years talking about v6 migration and
there's been very little light shed for the last 14 of those.  ;-)


|Can you clarify the scope of the RRG discussions, including with
|some examples?  I have a feeling that quite a lot of recent threads
|which I and others want to continue to discuss are outside the RRG
|scope, which you alone decide.
|
|Is it possible for you to organise a separate IRTF discussion list
|and appoint someone to moderate it?  I guess you don't want to be
|responsible for two lists.


I've got no problems moderating more lists and if folks want to spin off
subgroups to go have disucssions that's also welcome.  I'd like to know what
subjects/problems/projects/experiments they are going to deal with.


|I think the scope of the RRG list you want for now - and perhaps
|until 2009-03 - is narrower than the full scope of the RRG charter:
|
|   The RRG will have an open general discussion mailing list where
|   any topic of interest to the routing research community can be
|   discussed, and topics related to scalable routing architectures
|   are particularly encouraged.
|
|Some people interpret "research" as not involving engineering.
|However, this is an engineering field.  This is not science, such as
|astronomy or biology, which are concerned purely with understanding
|the processes of Nature.


I interpret research as simply broader than engineering.  Engineering is the
art of building based on the knowledge at hand.  Research also encompasses
pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.  

Since what we're doing is computer networking, which is largely based on
graph theory, complexity theory, computer scient, and topology, I'd say that
what we're doing is definitely applied mathematics.  Therefore it counts as
hard science.  I have to admit bias here, as I'm trained as a mathematician
and computer scientist.


|However, I think PPML is not the best place to continue the routing
|and addressing architecture discussions which don't belong on the
|RRG list.


Agreed.


|Do you suggest the RAM list be used for this?
|
|If not, maybe someone can set up a list with public archives.


It would be more appropriate if we set it up under the auspices of the IRTF.
We can easily do this.  Again, the mailing list should have a specific
purpose.  Please feel to collaborate with a few others to put together a
proposal.

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