Subject: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation

From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:29:39 -0400

I accidentally used an old address for sending this notification to the 
list.

Yours,
Joel

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RRG Recommendation
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:23:14 -0400
From: Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
To: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked], Routing Research Group list <[email-masked]>

The current I-D addresses all comments that were reeived during the
review period.  (Thee actually were a few comments beyond the one reviewer.)
Therefore, this document is ready for IESG review preparatory to RFC
Publication.

Thank you.

Document:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14

Tracker Entry:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/39

Paul Hoffman's review can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07291.html

The draft addresses these issues, and a few editorial items there were
found during the review period.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:23:26 +1000

Short version:   If (as I think Joel implies) it is a condition for
                 passing this draft to IESG approval that all
                 comments be either addressed in the current draft
                 or (I guess) be the subject of persuasive counter-
                 arguments in RRG list discussion, then this
                 condition has not been met.

                 There seems to have been a pattern of the chair
                 silently ignoring constructive comments about this
                 draft - from me and at least two other people.

Hi Joel,

Regarding the 2010-09-17 version:

you wrote, in part (typos corrected):

> The current I-D addresses all comments that were received during the
> review period.  (There actually were a few comments beyond the one
> reviewer.)

I think the first sentence is incorrect.

Version 14 doesn't address these comments:

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07312.html
   2010-09-09

Nor does it address these comments regarding how ILNP is described in
version 09 as being compatible with IPv6 applications, whereas I have
argued it is not, and no-one has shown how an ILNP-equipped stack
could work with existing IPv6 applications:

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07254.html
   2010-08-23

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07186.html
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07187.html
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07188.html
   2010-08-01 (the last one by Toni Stoev in support of my concerns)

The changes I suggested in these messages are not reflected in version 14.

The only response to the above-mentioned messages was Tony Li's:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07186.html
  2010-08-01

in which he dismissed my concerns on the grounds that they involved
the content of the draft, rather than simply editorial matters.  Toni
Stoev responded to Tony that matters of content were more important
than editorial changes.  Nonetheless, Tony did make changes to the
content of the draft, for instance based on a suggestion by Eliot Lear
(msg07264, 2010-08-25).

In msg07247 (2010-08-17) Tony Li stated that only a single comment had
been received about version 09 - and he was referring to another
comment, regarding an editorial matter.  This statement was incorrect,
since it ignored msg07186, msg07187 and msg07188.

The draft has not been changed regarding a concern I expressed:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07342.html
  2010-08-18

regarding a change from version 13 to version 14 from:

   Thus, the recommendation reflects the opinions of the chairs and
   not the consensus of the group.

to:

   Thus, the recommendation reflects the opinions of the chairs and
   not necessarily the consensus of the group.

On the same day, Stephen Strowes wrote in support of this concern,
with a suggested resolution (which I support) of deleting the second
part of the sentence:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07346.html

Toni Li has not responded (except dismissively in msg07186) to any of
the above messages, all of which were constructive suggestions for
improving the draft RRG Recommendation.  This document is primarily a
set of summaries, critiques and counterpoints about the 15 proposed
architectures.  It also contains the co-chair's recommendation for
what architectures the IETF should develop.

> Therefore, this document is ready for IESG review preparatory to RFC

No-one argued on the list against the constructive suggestions listed
above.  I think that Tony should either have accepted the changes or
argued persuasively against them - but he has done neither.

Your use of the word "Therefore" seems to indicate that in order for
the document to be ready for the IESG, it should either contain
changes which address all the comments and suggestions which were
made, or that those comments and suggestions should have been debated
on the list and persuasively argued against.

You can't have been referring only to the comments from the ISRG,
since you mentioned:

> (There actually were a few comments beyond the one reviewer.)

The one reviewer, as noted in:

  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/IRSGReviewLog

is Paul Hoffman.  His response to version 10 was:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07291.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07300.html
  2010-09-01

If, as your message indicates, it is a condition for passing the I-D
on to IESG review that it reflect all comments made so far, then this
condition does not seem to have been met.  The constructive comments
listed above were not responded to on the list by the chair or by
anyone else, and are not reflected in version 14.

  - Robin

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 01:19:57 -0700

>                 condition has not been met.

There is no requirement that all comments be addressed.  

>                 draft - from me and at least two other people.

As part of the editorial function, I exercise my best judgement as to what comments should and should not be reflected in the text.  Purely editorial comments (typos, grammatical issues) I typically accept immediately (assuming they're correct ;-).  Semantic changes get more consideration.  If significant shifts in semantics and/or comments about sensitive sentences are suggested, I will typically wait a bit to try to judge the response of the group, both public and private.      

> I think the first sentence is incorrect.

It would have been more relevant to say that it addressed all of the comments from IRSG members.

Tony

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 20:14:43 +1000

Hi Tony,

You wrote:

>> Short version:   If (as I think Joel implies) it is a condition
>> for passing this draft to IESG approval that all comments be
>> either addressed in the current draft or (I guess) be the subject
>> of persuasive counter- arguments in RRG list discussion, then
>> this condition has not been met.
> 

OK.

>> There seems to have been a pattern of the chair silently ignoring
>> constructive comments about this draft - from me and at least two
>> other people.
> 
> As part of the editorial function, I exercise my best judgement as
> to what comments should and should not be reflected in the text.
> Purely editorial comments (typos, grammatical issues) I typically
> accept immediately (assuming they're correct ;-).  Semantic changes
> get more consideration.  If significant shifts in semantics and/or
> comments about sensitive sentences are suggested, I will typically
> wait a bit to try to judge the response of the group, both public
> and private.

OK.  You sometimes respond to and accept on-list suggestions made by
an individual, without any supporting messages from other people.

You sometimes acknowledge a suggestion and state your reasons for
disagreeing with it.

My concern is that you sometimes give no acknowledgement of
suggestions, and no explanation of why you reject them.

I would have thought that people with something to say about the
report, or about suggestions for improving it, would be most inclined
to write about it to the list, rather than just to you privately.

Why should I or others have full confidence in your approach to
running this group, and finalising its report(s) when you apparently
give serious weight to what some people communicate with you
privately, when those people choose not to place their views on the
record via the list (and so encourage further discussion), while you
also choose to silently ignore perfectly constructive on-list
contributions which you apparently disagree with?

Why not respond on-list to the suggestions you disagree with and
explain why you think they are a bad idea?

>>> The current I-D addresses all comments that were received
>>> during the review period.  (There actually were a few comments
>>> beyond the one reviewer.)
>> 

OK.

> the comments from IRSG members.

OK - there were two messages from the one ISRG member who was assigned
to this task.

I understand from your reply that you believe there is no need to
acknowledge or explain your approach of ignoring some efforts which
were made to contribute constructive suggestions for RRG
Recommendation report you are responsible for.

I also understand that you believe this lack of engagement or
acknowledgement is part of how you try to ensure the RRG meets one of
the primary goals in the charter:

    The RRG will have an open general discussion mailing list
    where any topic of interest to the routing research community
    can be discussed, and topics related to scalable routing
    architectures are particularly encouraged.

I suggest that if you want to encourage full and constructive
discussion, by people with a wide range of ideas and expertise - and
in so doing improve the confidence people like me have in your running
of the group - you should provide more encouragement for people who
make the effort to contribute.  For instance, I suggest you should
lead by example when it comes to providing constructive criticism, in
part by responding to things you disagree with and explaining the
reasons behind your disagreement.

  - Robin

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 07:24:24 -0400

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14

I think the document should be renamed "RRG Report" instead of
recommendation and section 17 should be simply be cut after the second
sentence ("the group did not reach rough consensus on a single best
approach.")

Tony: I realize you wanted to reach a well supported recommendation,
but you didn't. Paul Hoffman hit it on the head. You, "do a disservice
to the obviously large amount of work in the RG that went into this
document" by forcing the inclusion of a recommendation that we, as a
group, did not achieve.

Lixia: I would respectfully and very delicately suggest that the
_appearance_ of impropriety involved in recommending your own proposal
when, "the group did not reach rough consensus," could come back to
haunt you irrespective of the technical merits of your ideas.

Folks are going to talk about this document, on mailing lists, in
hallways and at bars. What would you like them to say?

In my ever so humble opinion,
Bill Herrin

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

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 15:34:52 +0300

> sentence ("the group did not reach rough consensus on a single best

I support this idea. Not having the consensus, the document is just a report.

Toni

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 00:21:14 +1000

I support Bill's suggestion too.

The summaries, critiques and counterpoints are what matters.  They
contain introductory material, references and some critical
perspectives on the real ideas which were generated or at least
refined during this phase of the RRG.

As the draft stands at present, I think readers could get the
impression that the recommendation was fully informed by all the
material which precedes it.  However, at the time the co-chairs
decided on their recommendation, there are reasons to believe they did
not properly understand at least some of the architectures:

  The co-chairs do not understand Ivip and some other architectures
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06373.html
  (2010-03-27)

The recommendation didn't result from the efforts of the architecture
designers or from the RRG itself - so it should be published
separately with the co-chairs as authors, not editors, and stand on
its own merits.

 - Robin

Toni Stoev wrote:

> William Herrin wrote:

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 12:00:46 -0400

Bill,
I do support your suggestion and your opinion.
Heiner

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
An: RRG <[email-masked]>
Verschickt: Sa., 2. Okt. 2010, 13:24
Thema: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ [email-masked]  [email-masked]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:28:03 -0400

There appear to be two questions under discussion.

The first question is the line in my note as document shepherd to Aaron. 
  My wording could of been better.  All comments received were given 
appropriate consideration.  All comments from the IRSG, whose review 
period it was, were resolved sufficiently.  that is what is required.
In particular, the IESG review referred to is not a content review at 
all.  It is a narrow review for certain specific items.  (The procedure 
is described in RFC 5742.)

The question of the relationship between the document content and the 
preceding RRG discussion was itself discussed extensively on this list 
before the initial notice to the IRSG.  The document is very careful to 
be clear about what is a summary of work, and what the basis of the 
recommendation is.  While there was some disagreement, Tony followed 
procedures on determining suitability for publication of the document. 
The initial notice to the IRSG explicitly indicated that the 
recommendations were the chair's recommendations, not the research groups.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern, acting as document shepher

On 10/2/2010 7:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Joel Halpern<[email-masked]>  wrote:

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 14:40:12 -0400

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Joel M. Halpern, acting as document shepherd

Joel,

I realize my comments are probably out of order, but I offer that were
the group polled at this time, I think it likely you would find
uncharacteristically strong consensus in favor of the following two
questions:

1. Should section 17 of draft 14 be cut following the second sentence
("the group did not reach rough consensus on a single best
approach.")?

2. Should the word "recommendation" be removed from the document's
title, replaced with a more neutral appellation such as "report,"
"analysis," or "results?"

Perhaps I'm mistaken and I'll happily eat crow if I am, but I think it
would be unfortunate for all involved if the document proceeded to
publication on procedural technicalities without these questions
having ever been asked and answered.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:46:05 -0700

> an individual, without any supporting messages from other people.

Certainly.  If the suggestion is reasonable, not contentious, and a good clarification, then it adds value to the document.

> suggestions, and no explanation of why you reject them.

Please remember that the point of the document is to reflect the best thinking of the entire group.  Comments that advocate an outlier opinion, lack support from the group, or are simply unreasonable do not warrant further discussion.

Note that repetition, volume, loquaciousness, sarcasm, or acidic comments do not constitute support.  Instead, I look for a succinct, reasonable, and rational argument from a number of respected sources.

> to write about it to the list, rather than just to you privately.

You would be incorrect.  I get more private email than list email.

Some people are very hesitant to post to the list.

> contributions which you apparently disagree with?

Because after having been a member of the community since 1991, having devoted my professional life to improving the Internet, having demonstrated a certain degree of competence in building protocols and routers to run them, and having been a mostly reasonable person, I believe that I have earned a degree of respect.  Because my motivations are transparent: my sole purpose is to produce the best possible outcome for the Internet.

> explain why you think they are a bad idea?

Like everyone else here, I am a volunteer.  The time that I spend on this topic comes out of a combination of my professional and personal time.  I have a day job that has significant responsibilities.  I do not have an infinite amount of time to spend on this.  Nor would that be productive.  Therefore, I respond to the reasonable comments that need discussion.  Most others on the list operate in the same way.

> make the effort to contribute.  

Actually, as you may have noticed, our work here is largely complete.  Our remaining tasks are to polish the documents and then move on to new topics.

Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:54:22 -0700

Bill,

> having ever been asked and answered.

While your comments may be accurate, the RG has been following the usual process for discussing the document.  The RG LC was long ago.  That was the last appropriate milestone for such changes.  We then held a consensus check as to whether the group supported the publication of the document as of the end of the RG LC.  That passed.

We are now in the middle of the IRSG review, where we address comments from the IRSG.  Obviously, if there are other editorial comments (typos, grammar) that have slipped through, we would still address them, but, per our usual process, the time for significant changes is passed.

Regards,
Tony

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:05:29 -0400

> ("the group did not reach rough consensus on a single best

IMHO absolutely not.  There is some value in the discussion and
rebuttal, but the major point of the draft is what comes after that
sentence.  I say publish it.  Yes there is still contention but who's
surprised?  Now we take the discussion into the IETF where we try to do
Real Engineering by applying the results to the Real Internet, and see
how well they do.

> "analysis," or "results?"

Maybe, but I don't think that matters much.  If I had to pick one I
would go with "analysis and recommendation".

swb

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 15:58:25 -0400

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Tony Li <[email-masked]> wrote:
> While your comments may be accurate, the RG has been
>following the usual process for discussing the document.
>We then held a consensus check as to whether the group
>supported the publication of the document as of the end of
>the RG LC.  That passed.

Tony,

I did not consent and many of the folks who grudgingly did first
repeatedly asked you to strike the chair's recommendation from the
document. You unilaterally refused then and have once again declined
to poll the group on it today.

I don't like the ethics of it Tony. Even now you have the authority to
bring the document back to last call if there is some serious defect.
If you've truly expressed the will of the researchers, what do you
lose by asking one last pair of questions?

What you gain is legitimacy. Over the coming months and years as our
colleagues quiz each of us on why the alleged recommendation should be
disregarded in favor of the idea du jour, the easiest response is that
the the chairs, Li and Zhang, made up the recommendation _against_ the
group's consensus. That in fact there was no consensus and the
proposal with the most support, Lisp, was actively excluded on the
chairs' whim.

And I'm not saying that as a supporter of lisp. I dislike lisp. But
let's face it: it has more supporters than all three of the chairs'
recommendations combined.

Prove me wrong. At long last ask the questions or deserve the
reputations you earn having failed to.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:47:16 -0700

Hi,

I don't think your apparent unfamiliarity with the process being followed should accord your opinions with any merit - as far as I can tell, we are done.  I think the lack of consensus was due to the intransigence of some members of the working group, which continues, and in the face of which I think the chairs did a terrific job.

I am happy with the form of the document and with the recommendation.  I could comment that some of the proposals are ill-considered, but that would be gratuitous.  Have a nice day.

Thanks,

John 

Sent from my iPhone

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> William Herrin
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 12:58 PM
> To: Tony Li
> Cc: RRG; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation
>

---

From: Sampo Syreeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 00:45:05 +0300 (EEST)

> to poll the group on it today.

I won't stake anything on an issue I'm not thoroughly familiar with, 
but... Why argue about polling on-list? Why don't *you* poll the group, 
if that is what you feel should be done? There's nothing that would stop 
you from doing so, especially if you do it nicely, frame the poll 
reasonably, and take some rudimentary precautions against undue populism 
from irrelevant or late arriving people (like me).

> [...]

If there's one thing I've learnt online, it's that Flames lurk within 
the Tubes, and that they should be quenched before they flame up. If 
this was one of my IRC channels -- most of which deal with something 
much murkier than Internet routing -- I would've stopped the discussion 
right here because of the overly personal and combative tone.

How about rerepresenting the relevant evidence instead? Maybe somebody 
missed something, somewhere? Somebody has to have done that when a 
purely technical issue suddenly arouses this much emotion, no?

> [...] the easiest response is that the the chairs, Li and Zhang, made 
> up the recommendation _against_ the group's consensus. That in fact 
> there was no consensus and the proposal with the most support, Lisp, 
> was actively excluded on the chairs' whim.

I don't think an RG has to have consensus. Even a rough one. The lack of 
it is well documented as well, here. Why not document the fact in 
detail, from all sides, and then let it lie?

For the record, I used to like HIP quite a lot. Now, thanks to Robin's 
extensive analysis, I tend towards LISP+ALT(?) or some future derivative 
of it/them. Perhaps with some of HIP's initial handshake woven in for 
security and DDoS resistance. Why?

CES makes the end-user-to-network interface behave as it always has, and 
we have a huge track record of it working to our communal benefit. It 
also separates concerns, and leaves the road open to other kinds of 
architectures within the core (MPLS's track record immediately comes to 
mind). Then I might not agree about the precise architecture of how to 
do that; I for one would like to see LISP's encapsulation go away 
long-term-Ivip-style. But then why argue about such details at the RG 
level, and develop a flame war over it?

I mean, once we set the edge/core interface as it is and recommend CES 
as an overarching recipe, it's not such a hassle to engineer the 
specifics within the IETF and the industry. Why provoke a war here, 
about the specifics which ideally *should* be set lower down the chain?

(Finally, Robin, I know this isn't how you intended your analysis to be 
interpreted.)
-- 
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [email-masked], http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 20:05:20 -0400

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Sampo Syreeni <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Why argue about polling on-list? Why don't *you* poll the group, if that is
> what you feel should be done?

Hi Sampo,

Because for better or for worse, only the chairs can initiate a
consensus check. A straw poll would be just that, unlikely to garner
enough participation to make any definitive statement one way or
another.

> I would've stopped the discussion right here
> because of the overly personal and combative tone.

Please forgive any combative tone. I'm frustrated because the question
should have been asked when Tony came back from Anaheim in March
suddenly with "the RRG's recommendation." When asked to consider the
group's views on its inclusion he responded, "There is no intent or
implication to represent this as a consensus result."

That's beside the point. This is our document, our findings. If it
can't include our recommendations then it shouldn't include any.

If Tony allows a consensus check, which he hasn't and today reiterated
that he won't, I suspect we'd find that most of the participants
agree.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 09:27:14 +1300

...
> that he won't, I suspect we'd find that most of the participants

I don't. The draft quite clearly states that there is no RG consensus
and states what is the chairs' recommendation. This is all objectively
true and I have no problem with it whatever.

I wouldn't object to the document title being made more bland, and
I think Tony has already agreed to that.

   Brian

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:16:49 -0400

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I don't.

Brian,

I'd be happy to discover that I am mistaken in this. Mistake or not
I'd be even happier to get the actual views of the participants
clearly documented in the record. There are, however, two points about
which I am not mistaken:

1. Tony's initial inclusion of a the recommendation back in March was
very contentious, with substantial dissent exhibited on the list.

2. Despite the expressed dissent both then and now, the chairs have
declined to hold a consensus call specifically on the recommendation's
inclusion, instead allowing only a consensus call on the publication
of the entire document as edited.

Whatever the IRTF procedures may allow, I think it would be
contemptuous of the researchers to push an agenda like the
"recommendation" over their objections. So let's not do that. Solicit
the participants' consensus to allow the recommendation's inclusion or
else strip it from the document.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 16:23:06 -0700

Sent from my iPhone

> Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: RRG

JD:  As usual, there was a volume of whining from a few people.

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:26:58 -0400

> JD:  As usual, there was a volume of whining from a few people.

Then prove it. Hold a consensus check on the recommendation's
inclusion and find out for certain. That's what consensus checks are
for.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:17:53 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 7:27 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: RRG
Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation

>inclusion and find out for certain. That's what consensus checks are

To what end? How many people need to respond in the affirmative for you (since this *is* mainly about you) to be convinced that consensus is reached, and that the chairs are following the rules instead of being autocratic? Another surveymonkey poll whose respondents are self-selected? Email poll (also self-selected respondents) that hopefully the correct group of folks respond to? A discussion during Beijing? How many respondents constitute a majority? Do we disallow from voting anyone who might benefit from their proposal being recommended, since you implied in a previous message that there are ethics concerns? Even if we get a bunch of new folks who weigh in, how do we determine that they are actually bringing new concerns vs simply retreading old discussion that they weren't present for the first X times it happened? What if you don't like the results? Do you again cry foul as to the procedure until you get an answer you like?

And what value are you hoping to derive from proving that you're right and/or removing the recommendation? That this gets debated for another year within RRG, so that we get to hear the same arguments from the same group of folks that has fundamental disagreements over items in the recommendation? Ever heard that well-quoted phrase about the definition of insanity? The time for debating this further within the context of the IRTF is, in my opinion, long over and it's time to move on.

Count me as one that has not been as heavily involved in RRG as I would have liked, but strongly supports publishing the document as-is, independent of any procedural discussion as to whether your request is even appropriate. If the IETF community doesn't find any value in the recommendation because it doesn't represent consensus, they will do what they believe is appropriate after reading the document and making their own judgment as to the merits of the proposals, whether the recommendation is present or not. At this point, moving the items that have value to solve the problems this group was chartered to address into IETF WGs is what needs to happen, and your participation in those groups is the proper means to ensure that your opinion on their implementation is represented.

Wes George, token operator.

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

---

From: "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:58:54 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 7:24 AM
To: RRG
Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation

[[WEG]] I've tried, and I'm utterly failing to see your point, other than being disingenuous while trying not to appear that way. I fail to see how your interpretation of the perceived ethics (or lack thereof) makes one whit of difference with this proposal, especially since Lixia is not the only author on the AIS drafts. If you were actually (respectfully and delicately) concerned with Lixia's personal and professional impact due to the barroom and whispered implications of impropriety, you would have emailed her personally regarding this.

It'd be one thing if this proposal had several competing alternatives that were passed over despite vocal support, but it's largely a short-term solution that can be implemented while we fight about how (when, if) to implement any of the other recommendations.

I've already recommended that we continue the work proposed in AIS/Evolution in GROW as a follow-on to the VA drafts by Paul Francis, et. Al, because I'd rather have this as a possible tool in my toolbox to buy some time while the IETF (hopefully) makes a decision and implements a(ny) longer-term architectural change. Maybe I won't need it because this will all magically solve itself when it leaves IRTF, but given that we're *still* having arguments like this, I'm not hopeful.

Wes George

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:20:12 -0400

The time for debating this 
further within the context of the IRTF is, in my opinion, long over and it's 
time to move on.

Can you explain what you mean by moving on?
Heiner

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: George, Wes E IV [NTK] <[email-masked]>
An: William Herrin <[email-masked]>; John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Cc: RRG <[email-masked]>
Verschickt: Mo., 4. Okt. 2010, 16:17
Thema: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William 
Herrin
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 7:27 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: RRG
Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation

>inclusion and find out for certain. That's what consensus checks are

To what end? How many people need to respond in the affirmative for you (since 
this *is* mainly about you) to be convinced that consensus is reached, and that 
the chairs are following the rules instead of being autocratic? Another 
surveymonkey poll whose respondents are self-selected? Email poll (also 
self-selected respondents) that hopefully the correct group of folks respond to? 
A discussion during Beijing? How many respondents constitute a majority? Do we 
disallow from voting anyone who might benefit from their proposal being 
recommended, since you implied in a previous message that there are ethics 
concerns? Even if we get a bunch of new folks who weigh in, how do we determine 
that they are actually bringing new concerns vs simply retreading old discussion 
that they weren't present for the first X times it happened? What if you don't 
like the results? Do you again cry foul as to the procedure until you get an 
answer you like?

And what value are you hoping to derive from proving that you're right and/or 
removing the recommendation? That this gets debated for another year within RRG, 
so that we get to hear the same arguments from the same group of folks that has 
fundamental disagreements over items in the recommendation? Ever heard that 
well-quoted phrase about the definition of insanity? The time for debating this 
further within the context of the IRTF is, in my opinion, long over and it's 
time to move on.

Count me as one that has not been as heavily involved in RRG as I would have 
liked, but strongly supports publishing the document as-is, independent of any 
procedural discussion as to whether your request is even appropriate. If the 
IETF community doesn't find any value in the recommendation because it doesn't 
represent consensus, they will do what they believe is appropriate after reading 
the document and making their own judgment as to the merits of the proposals, 
whether the recommendation is present or not. At this point, moving the items 
that have value to solve the problems this group was chartered to address into 
IETF WGs is what needs to happen, and your participation in those groups is the 
proper means to ensure that your opinion on their implementation is represented.

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the 
sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the 
message.

---

From: "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:36:55 -0500

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 11:20 AM
To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation

time to move on.
Can you explain what you mean by moving on?
Heiner
[[WEG]] read my last sentence, snipped out below
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----

At this point, moving the items

________________________________
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:08:00 +1100

Hi Wes,

My concerns may not be identical to Bill's.

I support the suggestion that the co-chairs do a consensus check on
the statements Bill mentioned.

The co-chair's - now Tony is the sole chair - rely on our support for
publishing the draft as an RRG RFC, and will test that with an online
poll.  I think we all know the potential problems of of such
arrangements, but its the best which can be done in a self-selected
group such as this, with on formal membership.  So I think it is right
that serious questions about the nature of the RFC be discussed, with
a consensus test initiated by the chair if more than a few people
express support for something contrary to the current plans of the chair.

I support Bill's view that it is best the chair initiate any such
consensus test.  If someone else initiates a poll, then the results
are of debatable value, since not everyone would be motivated to
participate who would be motivated to participate in a proper
consensus check poll initiated by the chair.

I don't think it would be disastrous for the draft to be finalised as
it is, to be the "RRG Recommendation", which is ~95% useful material
on 15 proposed architectures, and ~5% the co-chairs' recommendation.
By "useful" I mean informative and helpful for people in the near term
and longer term future who want to understand the alternatives and do
their own evaluations.

The recommendation is quite brief and not very well explained or
argued.  Its value is that it is the carefully weighed judgement of
two people with long experience in this field.  However, I think its
value  is limited because the recommendation is so brief, because
there is little or nothing on the goals they hope to achieve, and
because in the absence of them detailing their goals, the current
version of the Design Goals is old and likewise brief and inadequate.
 (I plan to write my own "alternative RRG Design Goals" I-D - looking
at this massive global IT system upgrade more comprehensively and in
more detail than is favored by the chair.)

The value of the co-chairs' recommendation will diminish over time as
new architectures are developed and as those which were discussed in
this phase of the RRG are improved, developed, or found to be wanting
and abandoned.  The value of the summaries etc. will also diminish
over time, but they tell the reader much more about the various
architectures strengths and weaknesses than the co-chair's recommendation.

I think it would be better to put their recommendation in a different
RFC from the RFC which contains the material on the 15 proposed
architectures, and call the latter RFC the "RRG Report" or "Summaries
and Critiques of RRG Candidate Architectures" or whatever.

The authorship of these two items is quite different.  The co-chairs
alone are the authors of their recommendation.  The summaries and
critiques etc. are the work of the people who actually designed and
proposed new architectures, and of some of the people who wrote
critiques of these architectures.

The bulk of the current draft is not a recommendation - it is a
summary of the work done by many, but unfortunately not all, of the
most active and constructive members of the group over the last 3 or
so years.

The recommendation does not come from the RRG as a group.  It only
formally comes from the RRG by way of the co-chairs deciding to use
their defined ability to do things as they wish.  That's fine, but the
recommendation does not come from vast majority of RRG participants.
Nor does it have the support of the vast majority of the RRG
participants.  To bundle the RRG group's major single collective work,
which is not a recommendation, under the title "RRG Recommendation"
does not seem right to me.

Furthermore, given the apparent misunderstandings the co-chairs seem
to have had about the candidate architectures in March, when they
decided on their recommendation:

I would argue that their recommendation is not based very much on the
main body of the current draft - the summaries, critiques and
counterpoints of the 15 candidate architectures.

This is a second reason for separating the recommendation into a
different document from these summaries etc.

Although the draft is perfectly clear that the recommendation is from
the co-chairs alone, I think its placement after all the summary etc.
material gives an impression that it was well informed by that
material.  It think such an impression is not as true as it would
ideally be.

  - Robin

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 21:37:54 +0300

Hi calm and confident researchers,

Here is the summary of expressed opinions on renaming the RRG output document to Report:

Explicitly stated their opinion for:

  Heiner Hummel
  Robin Whittle
  Toni Stoev
  William Herrin

Explicitly stated their opinion against:

  John E Drake
  Wesley E George IV

Did something else:

  Brian E Carpenter
  Joel M. Halpern
  Sampo Syreeni
  Scott Brim
  Tony Li

Have a nice evening when you get one.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 14:49:20 -0400

> Explicitly stated their opinion for:

+1 on "For" from me

Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Sampo Syreeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:01:15 +0300 (EEST)

On 2010-10-04, Toni Stoev wrote:

> Explicitly stated their opinion for: [...]

Count me in. As a newcomer I've been reading up on the research, I-D's 
and the list archives en masse, and at least I can't see a reason why it 
should be otherwise. Whether or not everybody particularly loves the 
leadership and editorial decisions which have been made, I for one would 
like to see heavy technological reasons before considering something 
different.
-- 
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [email-masked], http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:29:59 +0300

Summary of expressed opinions on renaming the RRG output document to Report:

    Heiner Hummel
    Marshall Eubanks
    Robin Whittle
    Sampo Syreeni
    Toni Stoev
    William Herrin

    John E Drake
    Wesley E George IV

  So far done just something else:

    Brian E Carpenter
    Joel M. Halpern
    Scott Brim
    Tony Li

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 18:22:19 -0400

>inclusion and find out for certain. That's what consensus checks are

Personally I appreciate having the RRG chair's recommendation in the report, as long as it is clearly marked (as I believe it is) as **only** the chair's recommendation, and not in any way the consensus of the RRG nor of any other group. I believe that the readers of this report are in general smart enough not to take the recommendation as anything more than one thing to look at with an open, serious, but critical mind. 

Ross

---

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 19:30:28 -0600

> Personally I appreciate having the RRG chair's recommendation in the report, as long as it is clearly marked (as I believe it is) as **only** the chair's recommendation, and not in any way the cons…

+1

-shane

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:05:03 +0200

Ross,

 > **only** the chair's recommendation

I don't think it it true. I as a regular RRG WG member for that matter 
do agree with the given recommendation as produced by RRG chairs.

If you think this should be "*only** the chair's recommendation" can you 
provide a detailed explanation on how to deliver RRG or for that matter 
any other IETF or IRTF WG recommendation in the future which would not 
be "*only** the chair's recommendation" ?

Thx,
R.

>> inclusion and find out for certain. That's what consensus checks
>> are for.
>
> Personally I appreciate having the RRG chair's recommendation in the
> report, as long as it is clearly marked (as I believe it is) as
> **only** the chair's recommendation, and not in any way the consensus
> of the RRG nor of any other group. I believe that the readers of this
> report are in general smart enough not to take the recommendation as
> anything more than one thing to look at with an open, serious, but
> critical mind.
>
> Ross
>
> _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list
> [email-masked] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:07:45 -0400

> be "*only** the chair's recommendation" ?

If there's rough consensus.  Clearly the RRG did not achieve even rough
consensus.  If it had you could call it a recommendation of the RG.
(Since it's an RG not a WG it's okay not to achieve consensus.)