Subject: RE: Start running

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:45:06 -0800

And look what a wonderful result that was!

I'd seriously like to suggest that we NOT run down the proposal
path.  Again, all that does is lock people in on their personal
approach.  Folks dig in their heels and it comes to bloodshed.

I would rather that we take the approach that this is a collaborative
effort and address the issues and resolve them.  Start with a 
top level architecture and work down.  Yes, this is harder
on the chairs, but it needs to be done this way to ensure closure
without bloodshed.

Tony

|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|    Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:51 PM
|    To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist
|    Cc: [email-masked]
|    Subject: Re: Start running
|    
|    
|    Kurt;
|    
|    > > Last, we will try and have a beer BOF tomorrow at 
|    17.30-19.30. If you
|    > > feel you want to give input on the way forward, 
|    discuss solutoins, or
|    
|    > It was pointed out that this is during the dinner break. 
|    For those of 
|    > you who do not know me - I (and I guess Sean) will most 
|    likely be at 
|    > the bar after the IESG session as well.
|    
|    As I'm returning to Japan tonight (as scheduled long before),
|    I just leave a comment.
|    
|    Instead of wasting time on a requirement draft again, how about
|    having several design teams to work on their own proposals
|    and let them apeal to the WG? Each team can have their own
|    requirements.
|    
|    Note that it is an approach used to develop IPv6.
|    
|    							Masataka Ohta
|    
|

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 06:23:36 +0100

> And look what a wonderful result that was!

I see your point for a longer term vision, HOWEVER.....

> approach.  Folks dig in their heels and it comes to bloodshed.

Although I generally tend to agree with your view, I do think that we 
need let everyone present their opinions and evaluate them. You and me 
have a certain view of where to go, maybe that is where we will end up 
eventually (of-course I hope so), but in order to start working on one 
single solution we need to have a consensus saying that is where we 
want to go. And we wont get there unless we have looked at the 
alternatives thoroughly.

> on the chairs, but it needs to be done this way to ensure closure

I have no problem with loading the chairs (I guess Sean will give me a 
hard time for this...:) ) if that brings us forward, and I think you 
are right, but I think we need to do some other steps first.

- kurtis -

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:06:35 +0859 ()

Tony;

> approach.  Folks dig in their heels and it comes to bloodshed.

What's wrong with bloodshed?

> on the chairs, but it needs to be done this way to ensure closure

What's wrong with bloodshed?

Bloodshed on requirement draft as observed in this WG has been wrong,
of course.

But, bloodshed on fully implemented solutions are the best way
to develop good protocols.

Remember the bloodshed between the Internet and the OSI protocol suits.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Sean Doran <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:03:44 +0000

(public message follows)

Kurtis -

On Saturday, Mar 22, 2003, at 05:23 Europe/London, Kurt Erik Lindqvist 
wrote:

> hard time for this...:) )

No.  Setting out a (fairly typical) process and trying to convince the
volunteers here to come to consensus on the first item was a
nearly-complete failure, so I am watching to see if a consensus
develops over other approaches.

I have to say that at least three stark contrasts -- that advanced by
tli/rja suggesting a new process, that advanced by Christian Huitema
(and apparently attractive to you) suggesting a parallelization of 
labour,
and that advanced by Ohta-san, suggesting all-out warfare, each
have their alluring qualities (and some drawbacks), as well as 
considerable
history within other parts of the IETF.

There is also an unstated but discussed-in-the-background
approach of developing consensus over a document stating that:
	
	- scalable site-multihoming IS in the critical path of deployment
	- the problem is not currently well-understood within the IETF
	- there are many ideas about the problem, and about its solution
	- there are no known working-code/tested solutions
	- there is no agreed way to evaluate such solutions properly anyway
		- however, some are worth development & experimentation
		  (even those that would require a fundamental revisiting of
		  the architectural underpinnings of IPv6 by the Internet Area)
		- some are plainly stupid
	- "we tried and failed"

Which approach to support officially is not clear to me right now,
although *personally* I am leaning towards the last one.   Since that
approach can be done later if necessary ("we tried twice and failed"...
"we tried n times and failed"), I shall probably continue to hover in 
the
background until what looks like a very very very rough consensus
starts to develop on this.

	Sean.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:26:41 +0100

> history within other parts of the IETF.

I agree on this observation, but note that I would like to combine the 
proposals of tli/rja and Christian.

> 		- some are plainly stupid

I think that a document like to above would be useful, but I do not see 
what the road after this would be. I agree with the statements above, 
and indirectly this to me implies that we have failed with the design 
of IPv6. Now in a way that might be a reasonable statement depending on 
your needs, but at the same time it does little to help us move forward.

> starts to develop on this.
And I think we therefor need this discussion on where we want to move. 
Maybe you are right and we will come to the conclusion above. As I said 
before, I would consider reaching consensus on failure and that there 
is no way forward an achievement as well. But I am just a bit to 
stubborn to give up just yet.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:35:39 -0500

On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 04:26 America/Montreal, Kurt Erik Lindqvist 
wrote:
> I agree on this observation, but note that I would like to combine
> the proposals of tli/rja and Christian.

Kurt,

Well that would not be the same as what tli/rja have proposed.
Earlier today you claimed to agree with the process approach
proposed by tli/rja.  Now you say you want something different,
though it is unclear (to me at least) what you want to do differently.

I'm fairly confused by your various notes of the past few days.

Maybe you could start over again and outline what process approach
that you are proposing that the WG follow ?

> I think that a document like to above would be useful,
> but I do not see what the road after this would be.

I think that everything from smd, except the last bullet, is pretty
widely agreed upon here and would be worth documenting.

The last bullet ("we tried and failed") is too pessimistic for my
own view right now, hence the desire to try a top-down cooperative
approach (starting with finding an agreeable architectural approach).

I'd also like to see some requirements document get sorted out and
published, so that we understand what issues we are trying to address.
One possible way to sort it out would be for the document editor to hold
an organised on-list document review section by section, with several 
days
to discuss the current contents of each section.  Other approaches
might also work to sort through such a document.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:06:32 +0100

> that you are proposing that the WG follow ?

(First of all I am trying to get a discussion going so I have been a 
bit vague to get people to come forward...)

So, I agree with Tli/Rja that we do not want a race with multiple 
full-blown solutions. I do agree with Christian that we need to 
evaluate the solution spaces somehow. Now, what I think we need to do 
is to find the middle way by a) defining the solution space, which I 
think is more or less done b) Define the depth of the descriptions of 
each solution we need. Brian Carpenter have a point in that we want to 
have make sure they at least have enough content to prevent a long 
fight over that later on.  This depth would be defined by a number of 
milestones per architectural approach.

Does this make sense?

> approach (starting with finding an agreeable architectural approach).

See above. That is where I want us to move right now.

> published, so that we understand what issues we are trying to address.

After discussing with Joe Abley in SF, he will resubmit the document 
with changed normative references and title, and let's see if we then 
can get consensus for that.

> might also work to sort through such a document.

Joe?

- kurtis -