Subject: Re: [rrg] Recommendation

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:40:30 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>

    > I grep'ed for that and came up with things that didn't make sense. I
    > suspect that Noel meant "IF You Please".

Nope. Try the top entry in a Google search.

    > While there is no argument that this is not a consensus based
    > recommendation, IRTF outcomes are not required to be consensus based.
    > So while Noel's amended version is correct, the original is also correct.

The original formulation could be misleading to people who aren't up on the
way IRTF groups work, and assume there is some similarity to the way IETF
groups do. So I would appreciate it if you could make clear what the actual
cirmcumstances are (i.e. that there is not broad support for these
recommendations across the RG), when it comes to writing the report.

    > I'm very disappointed that we were unable to make further progress in
    > reaching consensus.

I think there are some points in which most people do seem to be in agreement,
e.g. I seem to recall a discussion about how broad the acceptance was of the
need for separation of location and identity as _part_ of the solution.

We've discussed this issue, of which points we could list general agreement
on, before; if I had more energy I'd post the URL of the thread in the
archives.

I don't recall if there were additional suggestions for things on which there
is broad (if not complete) agreement.

	Noel

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:36:09 -0700

> Nope. Try the top entry in a Google search.

I get "I Feel Your Pain".

> recommendations across the RG), when it comes to writing the report.

Fair, wilco.

> is broad (if not complete) agreement.

In particular, our goal was to reach consensus on an architecture.

Tony

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:04:07 -0400

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Tony Li <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> > the recommendation of the [chairs of the] RRG
>>>> IFYP

"I Fixed Your Post." Hence the inserted words.

BTW, apologies if I sent anyone scrambling earlier. I meant to say
NSF, not DARPA, Solicitation 10-528.  Future Internet Architectures.

-Bill

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ [email-masked]  [email-masked]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:53:11 +0100

> Nope. Try the top entry in a Google search.

I feel your pain?
I fixed your post?

Noel, you are really not in a position to ask others to 'make clear' or
to ruminate on how text written by others may be misleading, when your
own emails are so incredibly obscure.

Feel free to quote some long-dead country leader I've never heard of
at me, or otherwise blame my lack of desire to read your posts on
my unwillingness to use Google to try to interpret them.