On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 09:00 , Kastenholz, Frank wrote:
> We are purposely hoping/intending these requirements
> to lead to new, different, novel, ... architectures
> and protocols.
It is certainly the case that the body that chartered the
RRG had the above hope/intent, just in case anyone was confused.
The whole point of doing this work in the IRTF rather than
the IETF was to encourage out-of-box and non-traditional
and revolutionary (as different from evolutionary) thinking.
Evolutionary thinking about requirements would have more
obviously been undertaken in the IETF.
And to Randy's earlier point, he's right that this is supposed
to be *research*, so taking bold technology risks IS expected
and should be welcomed. My own concern is that maybe not everyone
realises that we really really aren't in the IETF and this
is not supposed to be any sort of engineering activity here
in the RRG.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT