I certainly agree with that. There can be multiple
proposed architectures but what we're trying to
produce at this point is requirements to them.
If any Group is working in the opposite direction
(having some specific architecture in mind and
trying to adjust requirements that would "lead"
to that architecture), that Group should explicitly
state so and propose the architecture, perhaps.
-- dima.> -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 1:53 PM > To: irtf-rr@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: Poke Poke... > > > My personal prejudices: > > I would certainly like to see us able to discuss several routing > architectures. However, what we are discussing right now is what the > routing architectures should accomplish. I for one am going to find it > very confusing to discuss in the same working group two > architectures, each > of which is working against different requirements FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. > > It would not surprise me if there was more than one viable architectural > approach to a reasonable next generation routing system. But if > we can not > even agree on what problem we are attempting to solve, the > discussions are > going to get very confusing. And when we are done I can not imagine the > IETF being able to make head or tail of the results under that > circumstance. It is going to be hard enough to explain one new > architecture that meets a single clearly explainable set of > goals. To try > to get the IETF to be able to actual make progress on the basis > of two sets > of goals as well as two sets of protocol(s) just seems unlikely. > I prefer > not to set us up for failure. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > At 06:39 PM 3/4/02 +0000, Sean Doran wrote: > >I would really like to see it be possible for EACH of these > >routing architectures to be operated IN PARALLEL in different > >parts of the Internet, but then I get accused of smoking strange > >things sometimes, so take that with a grain of salt.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT