Avri,
I understand your concerns and share them. However,
the IETF is driven by vendors, and vendors are driven
by their owners, and their owners are driven by careful
thinking about how to get more money with *minimal*
(research) effort. That is, this problem-patching IETF
philosophy is caused by very explicit business reasons.
It can be easily derived from this approach that the result
would be *almost* breaking at any given moment of time (and this
is what we see) but it would probably never break completely.
Mindsets inclined to much more fundamental thinking are
in the area of academic research.
-- dima.> -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@nortelnetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 12:42 PM > To: irtf-rr@nether.net > Subject: Re: Wither irtf-rr > > > Hi Shane, > > A few comments. It is difficult for me to know what it is that needs > to be solved here and what it is that needs to be solved in the IETF. > And since the real work of this group is going on behind the curtain, > it is difficult to judge which tasks this group is actually taking on > and what the status on them is. > > In general I think that both the configuration and routing policies, > multi-homing and other issues you mention as well as the convergence > issue all need to be covered by a research group. And I am sure that > there are other issues, e.g. some of my favorites are the hierarchical > structure of areas, ASs etc., and the capability for IPv4, IPv6, IPvn > and MPLS nets to truly peer in an Internet. > As I see it, the IETF is involved in stepwise patching and fixing > of the protocols in order to keep things working. It is a monumental > task and one which occupies so much effort that it does not seem to > allow the time for people to think about how to actually evolve (if > evolution and not revolution is goal) the Internet routing > architecture to the point where all the necessary issues are resolved, > not though patches and fixes, but though a coherent system design that > takes these issue into account in as simple and elegant a manner as > possible. This will, in my opinion, require some radical rethinking. > And finding ways to evolve to this radical new view without flag days > and other impossible events will be quite a challenge both for the IRTF > and eventually for the IETF. > > I guess all we can do now is be confident that the co-chairs and > their closed group cohorts will do the right thing. Other then > that the rest of us can work on our own to come with our own > notions and try to gather support for them in the IRTF and the IETF. > > a. > -- > > Avri Doria > +1 401 663 5024
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT