Subject: Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:43:31 EDT

Robin,
I share your opinion about documenting design goals and taxonomy. I can  
imagine that getting these drafts to some end isn't work anyone likes to do. 
Who  will read them later?
Myself, I am pretty much indifferent on this.
 
By reading your referenced former emails about the terms and pilosophies of 
 CES versus CEE I halted where you wrote that CEE is more DNS-based  (some  
how).
TARA would take advantage of either philosophy: A (TARA-)locator would be  
retrieved in addition to the destination IP address from DNS, however this  
locator might be out-of-date e.g. because of roaming. The wrong locator 
however  may still have some value: The roaming host might still be within the 
same  geopatch or within some neighboring geopatch and by means of a 
well-scoped  broadcast message (that starts from the ETR denoted by the  wrong  
locator, the right ETR might be searched and determined. 
 
Will say: TARA bridges this kind of opposition (between CES and CEE).
 
Heiner

In einer eMail vom 01.09.2010 13:44:47 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

Short  version:  I think it would make no sense to do more work on the
RRG Design Goals draft now,  since it resulted from
minimal discussion in early 2007 and has not been
discussed or revised since  then.

Likewise,  I think it would make no sense to use the
current draft as a normative reference in the  Report,
or to  pretend that the RRG completed a "list of
prioritized design goals", as required by our  Charter.

Hi Tony and Paul,

Tony, you wrote, in  part:

> The expired normative reference is the design goals  document.
> We'll be updating that and passing that up for IRSG review  as
> well.

This is the first time I am aware of you expressing  interest in
working on:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01

since 8 July  2007 when you created this version 01.

As I wrote in March this  year:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06160.html

this  version 01 resulted from very few list messages.  Your
announcement of  it was:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00183.html

The  scalable routing phase of the RRG began on 2007-03-17, with
message  29.  We are now up to message 7287.  There have been 40.5
months  since then, averaging 179 messages a month.

The Design Goals version 01  resulted from about 36 list messages,
between about 11 people - though I  guess there were off-list
discussions too.  Most of these messages  were no more than a few
sentences.  By message count, this is half a  percent of our list
discussions to date.

A week after you released  version 01, I wrote some detailed suggestions:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00203.html

thinking  there would be further discussions and a new version within
weeks.   However, nothing happened.  I wrote more suggestions in
December  2007:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00733.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg00786.html

and  there was one brief response from Xiaohu Xu.

Neither you, nor (I think)  anyone else has discussed the Design Goals
on the mailing list in any  substantial fashion since July 2007.

We should have worked much harder  on this.

I think the proposals in the Report are not based to any  substantial
degree on the Design Goals version 01, since that was a very  early
document, rarely discussed or mentioned on the list.  All the  actual
material is in Section 3 - just 1047 words.

A week ago, 18  people voted (all Yes) on publication of the Report:

Tony Li,  Joel Halpern, Ran Atkinson, Mohamed Boucadair, Fred Templin
Wes  George, Klaas Wierenga, K. Sriram, Robin Whittle, Ruediger Volk,
Hannu Flinck, David Williamson, Patrick Frejborg, Stephen Strowes,
Shane Amante, Bruce Curtis and DY (Dae Young Kim).

These people wrote  about 39% of the list messages to date.  These 18
people do not  include anyone from the LISP team, or proponents of
about half the 14  proposals.

Even if these 18 people, and whoever else is still engaged  in the RRG,
did agree on a revised Design Goals document, it would not be  a
document which was used in the preparation of the proposals.

Each  proposal should, I think, contain an explicit discussion of its
goals and  non-goals.  Ivip has 18 pages of goals and non-goals:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-whittle-ivip-arch-04

Due to the 500  word limit on the Summary for each proposal, the RRG
Report can't be  expected to convey the full set of goals and non-goals
for each  proposal.

Rather than pretend that all the proposals referred to the  Design
Goals draft, it would be better to let the reader delve into  each
proposal's documentation regarding goals and non-goals.

Another  requirement of the Charter was to produce a taxonomy.    Bill
Herrin worked towards this and I tried to refine it in  2009:

http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/rrgarch/

A second  attempt at a taxonomy was the Core Edge Separation (CES) vs.
Core Edge  Elimination (CEE) distinction:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html
(17.3.3)

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06110.html

Though  at least one person supported writing up the CES/CEE
distinction material  as an RFC, I have not had time to do it, and the
distinction and  terminology has been rejected by some people,
including Ran  Atkinson.

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

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:10:10 +1000

Hello Heiner,

Thanks for your reply, in which you wrote:

> Robin,
>
> I share your opinion about documenting design goals and taxonomy. I
> can imagine that getting these drafts to some end isn't work anyone
> likes to do. Who will read them later?
>
I figure people will read it.  The questions we are tackling will come
up in the future, even if nothing is done with LISP, Ivip, IRON, ILNP
or whatever for five or ten years.

I overdid my RRG efforts earlier this year and now have to concentrate
on paying work.  So I can't volunteer to write this up as an RFC - or
promise to do substantial work on Ivip in the foreseeable future.

> Myself, I am pretty much indifferent on this.

I don't clearly understand this.

> By reading your referenced former emails about the terms and
> pilosophies of CES versus CEE I halted where you wrote that CEE is
> more DNS-based  (some how).

I don't recall making any such statement - nor do I know what it would
mean.

> TARA would take advantage of either philosophy: A (TARA-)locator would
> be retrieved in addition to the destination IP address from DNS,
> however this locator might be out-of-date e.g. because of roaming. The
> wrong locator however may still have some value: The roaming host
> might still be within the same geopatch or within some neighboring
> geopatch and by means of a well-scoped broadcast message (that starts
> from the ETR denoted by the  wrong locator, the right ETR might be
> searched and determined.
>  

You have been referring to TARA for years now, as if it is a real
proposal.  You believe you understand it, but as far as I know, no-one
else does.   Other people have documented their proposals to the point
where interested folks can understand them.  You have not done this -
you just keep referring to TARA as if it is substantial and that RRG
people should consider it a real alternative.  But I am sure none of
us have a concrete clue what TARA involves.  I think we only know it
by your frequent analogies to other systems, such as the road system
- which I and I guess other people cannot translate into anything
practical and meaningful regarding routers and packets.

  - Robin

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:49:40 -0700

> or whatever for five or ten years.

Based on what I have seen in the past, I agree here.

> ......

1/ The terms CES versus CEE came from a HOTNET paper, "Towards A Future Internet Architecture: Arguments for Separating Edges from Transit Core"
ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), October 2008
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2008/papers/18.pdf

I do not think "DNS-based" or not is part of the CEE concept.

2/ I recall that long time ago I signed up to help a taxonomy draft. Scott Brim and I even produced a couple versions (predated the above mentioned paper).  Although I've stepped down from RRG, I feel an obligation to help finish this piece.

Let me first dig out the old draft by Scott and me.
Then look over the mailing list discussion (if Robin has pointers at hand, that'd be very helpful than going through all email archive:)

I chatted with Scott about this taxonomy draft at Maastricht IETF. Scott, wonder if your busy period is over and have some cycles for this now.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:41:23 +0200

On 09/07/2010 03:49 GMT+02:00, Lixia Zhang wrote:
> 1/ The terms CES versus CEE came from a HOTNET paper, "Towards A
> Future Internet Architecture: Arguments for Separating Edges from
> Transit Core" ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets),
> October 2008 
> 2/ I recall that long time ago I signed up to help a taxonomy draft.
> Scott Brim and I even produced a couple versions (predated the above
> mentioned paper).  Although I've stepped down from RRG, I feel an
> obligation to help finish this piece.
> 
> Let me first dig out the old draft by Scott and me. Then look over
> the mailing list discussion (if Robin has pointers at hand, that'd be
> very helpful than going through all email archive:)
> 
> I chatted with Scott about this taxonomy draft at Maastricht IETF.
> Scott, wonder if your busy period is over and have some cycles for
> this now.

I said I would be available September 10th, and look, there it is,
coming up real soon now :-).  Let's talk any time after 3pm on Friday.

Scott

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:54:50 +1000

Short version:   I found six attempts at making a taxonomy of
                 RRG proposed architectures:

                   March 2008  Lixia and Scott's I-D
                   April 2008  My 25 questions
                   April 2008  Joel Halpern's I-D
                   July  2008  Christian Vogt's PDF document
                   Early 2009  Based on Bill Herrin's Strategies
                   Early 2010  My CES/CEE distinction messages

Hi Lixia,

In "Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-
12.txt" you wrote:

>> I figure people will read it.  The questions we are tackling will
>> come up in the future, even if nothing is done with LISP, Ivip,
>> IRON, ILNP or whatever for five or ten years.
> 

OK.

> I do not think "DNS-based" or not is part of the CEE concept.

I agree.

> 2/ I recall that long time ago I signed up to help a taxonomy
> draft. Scott Brim and I even produced a couple versions (predated
> the above mentioned paper).  Although I've stepped down from RRG, I
> feel an obligation to help finish this piece.
> 
> the mailing list discussion (if Robin has pointers at hand, that'd
> be very helpful than going through all email archive:)
> 

Scott announced the I-D on 2008-03-29:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02006.html

The I-D is version 00 only, from the same date:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rrg-taxonomy-00

I commented on it on 2008-03-31, you responded and I replied:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02015.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02038.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02042.html

There was also an exchange between you and Heiner Hummel a few days
later.  As far as I know, there were no further substantial
discussions of this I-D on the list.  Hannu Flinck (msg02132.html)
wrote positively of your I-D.

You wrote to the list:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02162.html

with primarily a 2-way taxonomy, with a potential 3rd classification
for address rewriting proposals (such as Six-One Router, I guess).

A second taxonomy attempt began on 2008-04-02:  I made a set of 25
questions:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02033.html

and after some discussion, made a web page which incorporated
suggestions from other people:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/comp/

Most of the questions refer to distinctions between what we know know
(or at least some people recognise as) Core-Edge Separation
architectures.  This has been pretty much superseded, since most of
the proposed architectures considered in this framework are no longer
under development - or have changed considerably.

On 2008-04-28, Joel Halpern wrote to the list:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02161.html

about his new I-D, which he updated on 2008-07-12 to version 01:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-rrg-taxonomy-01

On 2008-07-25, Christian Vogt wrote to the list:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02911.html

referring to:

  http://users.piuha.net/chvogt/pub/2008/vogt-2008-design-taxonomy.pdf

which no longer exists.  I don't recall anything about this, and I
think it was not discussed on the list.  I don't think I have a copy.

Another attempt at a taxonomy was in early 2009:

This is based on Bill Herrin's Summary of Routing Architectures
discussed in the RRG:

  http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html

I attempted to keep my page updated according to suggestions arising
in discussion.  Strategy A is basically Core-Edge Separation (CES) and
Strategy B is basically Core-Edge Elimination (CEE).

Bill's approach was mentioned in the initial draft of the RRG
Recommendation: 2009-02-15:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-00

after another taxonomy based on "mechanism".  Versions 01 and 02 to
2009-03-29 were similar.  Version 03 (2009-12-26) was a completely
different document.

A more recent taxonomy approach is the two-way distinction between CES
and CEE, from early 2010:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06250.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05865.html

This is based on your Hotnets paper.  My message of 2010-02-12

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06009.html

contains an attempt to understand the history of this CES/CEE distinction.

This list is based on searching my RRG mailbox, which starts on
2007-03-31 - for "taxonomy" in the subject line and then in the body.

 - Robin

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:15:36 -0700

Truly appreciated all this info, Robin!
will look over the weekend. Scott and I are scheduled to chat Monday on how to move the taxonomy draft forward. 

Lixia