>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.
Ran, I can certainly see revolutionary thinking about architecture.
I have more problem with the idea that we don't at least have a
group-level agreement, even with out-of-the box ideas, on
requirements. The diversity, as I see it, comes in with alternative,
purple-sky alternative architectures.
I'm not clear where or if you are drawing a line between requirements
and architectures.
>
>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.
>
>Ran
>rja@extremenetworks.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT