Subject: Re: [rrg] Wildly unrealistic Recommendation

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:38:38 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>

    > No-one else wrote what they would like to see in the Recommendation.

Just curious, don't you think that working on a proposed design counts as
'[indicating] what [you] would like to see in the Recommendation'?

As to the rest, perhaps you should study the contretemps between Andrew
Jackson and John Marshall (although I gather the famous line is now thought to
be apocryphal).

	Noel

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:43:39 +0000

which workgroup do they chair?

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa [[email-masked]]
Sent: 26 March 2010 18:38
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rrg] Wildly unrealistic Recommendation

[..]

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:25:39 +1100

Short Version:   I am the only one so far to write a comprehensive
                 suggested RRG Recommendation text.

                 Studying the "contretemps between Andrew

                 Jackson and John Marshall" - which is 19th century
                 US history perhaps not known to the many people
                 in this field.

John Drake wrote:

> Yawn
> Sent from my iPhone

I guess this is a less favourable assessment than your previous
"morbidly entertaining".   In addition to your 6 messages to the RRG
- which are all one-liner pot-shots at me or what I wrote - your
contributions to the scalable routing field are ....?

> '[indicating] what [you] would like to see in the Recommendation'?

I should have written "Recommendation text".

Obviously I know every proposed design was intended to be chosen as
the Recommended architecture - apart from "Enhanced Efficiency ...",
which was submitted for archival purposes.  But that is not the same
as writing up, as I did:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html

a complete suggestion for the full text of the RRG Recommendation.

Just proposing an architecture did not initially involve arguing
against all the other architectures.  However, once they had all been
submitted, I think every proposer of an architecture really should
have argued in detail why every other architecture was inferior to
theirs.  In the last few months, few proposers mentioned any
architecture than their own.  I was the only person to discuss all
the architectures.

To write a comprehensive Recommendation (really, a suggestion for
what the RRG Recommendation would ideally be) involves classifying
the architectures in some way, pointing out commonalities and points
of divergence and then comparing their strengths and weaknesses.  It
then involves making value judgements about all this and making an
actual Recommendation, with all the supporting arguments so people
can understand the reasons why this decision is the best one.

I don't like the Recommendation Lixia and Tony have crafted.  As part
of my critique of their Recommendation, I have provided an
alternative - what I regard as a good, complete, RRG Recommendation
text.

You don't like the co-chairs' Recommendation either.  What would you
write, as a complete RRG Recommendation text?

> Jackson and John Marshall (although I gather the famous line is now thought to

References please!  I assumed you were referring to some IETF or IRTF
workers.  Scurrying to Google, I find:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson

      The state of Georgia became involved in a contentious
      jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokees, culminating
      in the 1832 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Worcester v.
      Georgia) which ruled that Georgia could not impose its
      laws upon Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson is often quoted
      (regarding the decision) as having said,

          "John Marshall has made his decision,
           now let him enforce it!"

      Whether he said it is disputed.

The Australian education system didn't provide me with much knowledge
of US history and my reading since then didn't include these fellows.

I think the co-chair's Recommendation text has no credibility which
arises from the RRG as a group.  It will be interesting to see how
they argue their case for their chosen architectures - including
especially how they establish they have an adequate understanding of
the architectures they rejected, and how they argue why their choices
are justified.

 - Robin