Subject: [rrg] Detailed critiques of other architectures

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:27:01 +1100

Hi John,

As noted by k claffy and Eliot Lear:

    feature comparison chart, conscripted peer review ?
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06024.html
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06044.html
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06054.html

the RRG suffers from lack of critiques of proposals.  k claffy
suggested everyone who wrote a proposal be required to critique three
or so others.  Eliot concurred:

   I think this is a great (and necessary) idea to give authority to
   the work people are doing.

I think this can be extended from the authors of proposals to those
who support a particular architecture.  Its my impression you support
ILNP - but whatever you support, here is a suggestion about how to
further the cause of that architecture.

I suggest you argue why your preferred architecture is superior to
all the others - including with specific, detailed, discussion of the
other architectures and why, in your view, they either can't work, or
would not work as well as your preferred architecture.

As a prelude to this, I suggest you describe your understanding of
the scalable routing problem, whether your proposal handles Mobility
or not - and what other goals you think there should be for the once
in several decades upgrade to the IPv4 and/or IPv6 routing and
addressing system, host protocols etc.

My attempt to do this is here:

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

If you disagree with any of this, I would appreciate you arguing why
on the list.

This is a general suggestion for many people on the list, but I am
mentioning it to you because you have recently expressed disagreement
with me on the list, without explaining your arguments at all.

You first wrote to the RRG list on Jan 31th.  All four of your
messages to date have been brief, unsubstantiated, "critiques"
(perhaps too grand a word) of something I wrote.  There's 50 words in
total:

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05839.html
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06211.html
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06223.html
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06283.html

As I suggested to Ran (msg06284), in my opinion of course:

       Just stating one's opinion is not a discussion.  Nor is
       it particularly interesting or informative.  A proper
       discussion involves explaining the reasons behind your
       opinions, and the reasons behind those reasons, debating
       these reasons and providing detailed critiques of other
       people's proposals and arguments.

  - Robin

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:39:16 +1100

One list member informed me privately of their perception that I was
demanding that people write critiques and that people argue the case,
in detail, for their opinions - rather than just stating their opinions.

I can't and don't demand anything.  I suggest these as a good way of
making further progress.   This seems like common-sense to me.

I am also stating that I find it difficult or impossible to respect
the views of anyone who simply states their opinion, or promotes a
particular architecture, without at the same time arguing in detail
for that viewpoint *and* arguing in detail against the arguments of
people who arrive at different conclusions.

 - Robin

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:30:33 -0700

Snipped

JD:  Just to be clear, while your musings are morbidly entertaining, they are not necessarily respected no matter how many times nor how loudly they are repeated.

 - Robin

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg