At 12:52 PM -0500 3/4/02, Kastenholz, Frank wrote:
>At 09:47 AM 3/4/02 -0500, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>>At 8:49 AM -0500 3/4/02, Kastenholz, Frank wrote:
>>>Hi folks,
>>>
>>>A while ago I sent out a note
>>>saying that the requirements sub-group
>>>has produced a not-quite-an-internet-draft
>>>document. We've received little in the way
>>>of commentary. Does that mean we should get
>>>it published as an RFC?
>>
>>Assuming this is the next-generation routing requirments, did you see a
>round of seeing if it could be harmonized with the Group B work?
>
>Howard, Avri and I talked about this at some length. Then
>Sean and I talked. As the IRTF/RRG is set up, it is not our
>job to come up with The Definitive Once And For All Set of
>Routing Requirements. That smacks of "A Standard" and the IRTF
>does not do Standards... So, if two different groups within the
>RRG wish to produce a document and those documents overlap in
>some way, that's quite OK. The IETF if/when they wish would,
>in theory, spin up some working group(s) to look into the
>Standardization side of things and _they_ would need to come
up with The One True Answer...
>
>>More broadly, what's the next step for both of these?
>
>Sean and I are talking about this.
As you know, I haven't been a Secret Squirrel in the IRTF, but merely
a caterpillar looking forward to full butterfly status. :-)
Nevertheless, I lean definitely to one document or document set from
the IRTF to IETF, whether or not that's the way it's been done.
BIG CAVEAT. If there turns out to be several distinct viewpoints
about RoutingNG--hypothetically, one based on control theory, one on
map exchange, and one on the technology of the Psychic Friends
Network--it's entirely appropriate to have several such documents,
much as there were several competing approaches for IPng. Even so, it
would be useful that these documents be written with something of a
common structure so they can be compared and contrasted.
>
>> We have sent in our document as an I-D, which I assumed you would.
>
>Well, first, it was kinda late. Second (and this is my
>_personal_ view for things I do and is _not_ my view as co-chair
>of the RRG) since this is an IRTF/RRG document, the IRTF/RRG
>should get "first crack" at things; that is, it's distributed
>for comments & feedback within the RRG and only then, when "we"
>are happy with it (or at least no one sends me threatening email :-)
>do we send it to the ID repository for general comment.
>
>Frank Kastenholz
Frank, your personal opinion above isn't necessarily unreasonable. My
gut tells me that by the time something hits the IETF, there should
be one consensus document. I may have been confused by your original
"poke poke" message--was it intended more as a "last call" _within
the IRTF_?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT