> Several people have mentioned that restricting the requirements to
> something
> that is purely evolutionary just won't do, and have criticized the
> Group B
> requirements for requiring an evolutionary approach. I.e. they are
> critical
> of the requirement to evolve from today's network to tomorrow's network
> and
> argue that a revolutionary approach is necessary.
I must have missed the notes you mention.
I have seen several folks (me included) suggest that an evolutionary
approach was not the kind of thing that belonged in the iRtf, but
instead that evolutionary work more nearly belongs in the iEtf.
This is very much different than the summary above, because this speaks
to *where* a given approach should be undertaken, not which is or
isn't the right answer for the global Internet at a particular point
in time.
For my own part, I think both approaches should be persued,
though it seems mighty odd to be trying to undertake both in a single
Routing Research Group. Maybe the right approach is to split into
2 separate RGs, with different leadership (NB: such a decision could only
be made by the IRTF Chair).
I'm not speaking for the IAB, but my understanding was that
the IAB thought that evolutionary work would be handled within the
usual IETF processes and that the role of the IRTF RRG was to undertake
a more revolutionary ("clean sheet of paper") approach.
Perhaps the RRG Chairs can clarify where which of us are confused
on scope and charter ?
And maybe the Routing ADs can clarify whether they object to folks
undertaking normal evolutionary work inside the IETF Routing Area ?
Cheers,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT