Subject: [RRG] Process proposal: Conceptual Summary and Analysis documents

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:47:55 -0800

Hi all,

As we've discussed, RRG aims to converge on a single recommended  
solution for a scalable routing and addressing architecture over the  
next year.  Towards that end, we would like to ask the backers of the  
various proposals to prepare some documents to aid in our comparison  
and discussions of proposals.

1) Conceptual Summary
This document should summarize the entire proposal at a conceptual  
level, and explain the fundamental ideas behind the proposal.  It is  
important that the document clearly identify whether the proposal is  
a complete solution to a scalable routing architecture, or one  
function in a complete solution.  In the latter case, it should also  
identify the other functions of the solution the proposal depends on,  
and give a clear description of the interface to these other functions.

2) Analysis
This document should compare the proposal against the RADIR problem  
statement and the design goals draft.

Each of the above two documents should be 4 pages or less, including  
all the tables and figures if any, but excluding the reference list,  
with font size 11pt or larger, and 1 inch margin on each side.  A  
proposal may provide a combined document that encompasses both of  
these with a total length of 8 pages or less.

Finished documents should be added to the RRG wiki page under  
"Proposal Summaries" whenever they are ready, but should be no later  
than the Internet draft -00 deadline for Philadelphia, which is Feb  
18., 22:00 UTC, to leave adequate time for discussions before our  
next meeting.

Note that this request for documenting the conceptual summary and  
analysis is only the first step towards systematic comparisons of  
various proposals.  Our final design recommendation will need  
substantially more work to aid the evaluation process, such as the  
performance evaluation and incremental deployment/migration  
strategies.  We encourage people to start working on these issues  
early; they should also be documented in due time.

Regards,
Tony and Lixia

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:28:47 +0100

Lixia,

Four comments:

First, while the RADIR problem statement contains some interesting
questions, it is merely at best a starting point, and one that has not,
so far as I can tell, drawn much support.  There are likely OTHER
factors that will come into play that go beyond the RADIR statement,
while some factors mentioned in the RADIR statement may seem less
important.  These are engineering tradeoffs one must consider.  Being
bounded to the RADIR problem statement, therefore, is not appropriate.

Second, even if one were to analyze solutions based strictly on the
RADIR problem statement, the level of analysis given the size limit of
the document will likely be superficial at best.  I've done a fair
amount of analysis with NERD which itself runs 12-13 pages.  The page
limit, therefore, seems small. But that also means...

Third... the time frame is wrong.  If someone actually wants to
experiment in order to perform the analysis, one and one half months
(which is really what we have with holidays) leaves literally no time. 
Again, with NERD, I verified my numbers by actually building databases
and writing code.

Finally, it would be MORE useful to ME if OTHERS analyzed my work.  I'm
sure that authors of other proposals feel the same way.

Regards,

Eliot