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

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Hi Dan,

In:

 Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space
 http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01585.html

You wrote, in part:

> The RRG has not yet been able to agree on what motivations are
> possible in the long term (have we even decided on the duration of
> this 'long term'?  1000 years?  50 years? 10 years?).  An example
> of this lack of agreement is that Bill Herrin just made arguments
> for the need for PI space due to some current operational
> practices.  Tony Li rebutted that these practices can change over
> time.  Is it safe to assume that any proposal requiring these
> changes must come with some reasoning that these changes will
> indeed occur over time?
>
> Robin suggests that instead of trying to develop a general driver
> constraint, we should recommend specific proposals and discuss
> them.  For any particular proposal, we know the changes proposed.
> We can argue about the feasibility of the changes and evaluate the
> proposal based on this as well as the proposal's effectiveness,
> security, etc.  However, Tony doesn't think this is a good course
> of action.

I think the RRG needs to decide on a time frame for a solution, and
on whether we are pursuing a single solution, or multiple parallel
streams of research.  If so, do we discuss all those streams on the
RRG list, or should there be one or more other lists?

Then, for any stream of research, there is the question you mention
of whether we focus on conceptual discussion, avoiding specific
proposals.  I understand the desire to see beyond current proposals
and to seek new ideas, but I am very much opposed to ruling out
discussion of all the juicy details by which actual IT systems sink
or swim.  Call it engineering or whatever - this is research in an
engineering field, and we need to think about every possible detail,
while also thinking about broad architectural principles and new
ways of approaching the problem.

In this message:

  Conceptual vs. specific - another discussion list?
  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01530.html

I proposed a second RRG-Sandbox list to carry a wide range of
RRG-related discussions which were outside the scope of the RRG
list, since I understand the need to exclude from RRG discussions
quite a range of things in order facilitate progress as Lixia and
Tony think is best.

I was also prompted by rough consensus being achieved on:

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01535.html

    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.

which I think would make it difficult or impossible to discuss IPv4
at all on the RRG list.


In these two messages:

  3 potential consensus questions
  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01574.html

  Long term clean-slate only for the RRG?
  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01594.html

I suggest the RRG needs to decide ASAP whether we are pursuing
several lines of research or just one - and if so, which one.


  - Robin


--
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