Subject: [arch-d] (no subject)

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:38:34 -0500

Earlier Thomas Narton wrote:
% The first step is to get a small design team together that can
% articulate the problem, explain why the existing approaches (e.g.,
% shim6) don't meet the requirements and articulate a rough outline of
% an alternate approach that addresses the stated requirements. Once
% there is some sort of consensus within the team, do expanding scope
% consensus building in which more people are drawn in, their input
% accepted, etc. Over time, if the process is working, you start
% building critical mass support for an approach. One of the keys here
% though is drawing in people from a broad cross-section of the
% community (not just more of those that already "believe"), since the
% others are the people that will bring alternate perspectives (e.g.,
% from transport, applications, etc.) and will also be critical (in the
% end) in terms of getting broader community concensus for an approach.

With roughly 2 exceptions, the IRTF NSRG membership believed that
there were real problems that existing approaches could not solve
and agreed on an alternate architecture that addressed the stated
requirements.  That architecture was similar to the O'Dell proposals,
variously known as 8+8 or GSE.

However, the NSRG was operating under a "unanimous consent" model,
rather than under the usual "rough consensus" model, for some reason.
This is one of several reasons that a more complete NSRG report never
materialised.

Previously, Mike O'Dell and others (collectively, they constituted
an informal "design team") outlined the problem and an alternate
architecture at the (now infamous) GSE shootout.  After that meeting,
an alleged description of the outcome of the meeting was drafted.
Unfortunately, that draft mainly indicated that the authors of that
draft had not understood what had actually been proposed by O'Dell.

So please forgive me for saying that the approach you outline above
WAS tried on this topic AND met with artificial barriers to progress.

So I think that Tony is right -- without some official sanction,
progress within IETF/IRTF on a new architecture is unlikely to happen.
People have been burned, some more than once, on this topic, so are
reluctant to waste time tilting at windmills again.  Research on
this topic does crop up in the public literature occasionally.

% The reason I am not advocating having the IAB drive this is that
% ultimately, these efforts are most successful when driven by those who
% see the need and have an interest. Sure, at some point the IAB should
% get involved, but having it drive the effort initially is not
% necessarily the best approach in practice (and smacks of a too-common
% IETF problem of "we need to fix this, but somebody else is responsible
% for doing the actual work").

I have not heard anyone suggest that the IAB "drive this".  I have
heard several people suggest that the IAB formally approve a project
so that participants have at least a level playing field to work
with.  This should include the serious possibility of changes to
IPv6 and related protocols (e.g. Transport-layer pseudo-header
checksum calculations) if the sponsored group produces results
indicating such changes are required.  There are several forms
that formal approval might take.

One possibility would be to create an IRTF New Architecture RG,
possibly with Li and Chiappa as co-chairs.  In the interest of
progress, such an RG should probably start with a closed membership,
then move to a semi-open membership (analogous to the IRTF RMRG),
while having a fully open "-interest" mailing list all along.
I am sure that other possibilities for official approval of such
a project also exist.

I continue to do individual research relating to this topic.
I see some others doing research relating to this topic.
Absent some concrete reason to believe the political landscape
has become much more level than in the past, most researchers
in this area don't see any point in bringing the results of that
research to the IETF or IRTF organisations.

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:34:59 +0100

At 23:38 23/02/2006, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>the IRTF NSRG membership believed that

I understand a contention exists. But is there a possiblity to read a 
description of that proposed architecture the IRTF considered favorably?

>research to the IETF or IRTF organisations.

The political landscape:

1. has changed: this list was created by the IAB
2. there is need to exchange propositions and thinking. Individual 
thinkers will never suceed to change a billions machines and users 
system without some structured support. IGF can be a future 
possibility. This should not prevent documenting the IETF and IRTF. 
To the contrary I feel we can now put them in competition to listen 
propositions seriously?
jfc