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

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:25:51 -0800

Below was a msg sent to RRG 2 months ago asking the backers of each  
proposal to submit a conceptual summary and an analysis document.   
Embarrassingly, I forgot the deadline myself (somehow I wrongly got  
Philly IETF as deadline in my mind:(

Thanks to Robin who reminded us about this (see his msg February 19,  
2008 7:00:47 AM PST) and was the first one to submit the requested  
documents!

We still believe that a summary and an analysis document for each  
proposal would be a tremendous help towards systematic comparisons of  
various proposals.  It is our fault for not reminding the group about  
the deadline ahead of time.  We'd like to remedy the situation by  
extending the submission deadline to March 3, that would leave one  
week for people to work on the document, and one week for the group to  
review the documents before our Philly meeting.

Tony and Lixia

On Dec 20, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:

> 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

--
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: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:09:19 +1100

Lixia and Tony wrote, in part:

> Thanks to Robin who reminded us about this (see his msg February
> 19, 2008 7:00:47 AM PST) and was the first one to submit the
> requested documents!

I missed the deadline by a day or two, but Christian Vogt's
documents were there before the deadline.

In the event that I change the Ivip proposal in a way which affects
the description and analysis, I hope it will be OK to replace the
linked to document with another version of similar length.  Whenever
this occurs, I plan to do this, with a note at the top stating the
new version's date and a pointer to the previous version and a
changelog.

  - Robin

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:58:16 -0800

> new version's date and a pointer to the previous version and a

That's extremely ok.  ;-)

Tony

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:16:41 -0800

I finally updated the wiki page to point to the LISP ALT and 
Interworking drafts.  We're almost done with an analysis doc.  Real soon 
now.

Scott

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:13:12 -0800

|I finally updated the wiki page to point to the LISP ALT and
|Interworking drafts.  We're almost done with an analysis doc.  Real soon
|now.

Thanks very much, we deeply appreciate it.

Tony

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:50:03 -0500

> statement and the design goals draft.

OK, we finally have an analysis draft.  The wiki
(http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/RoutingResearchGroup)
has a pointer to it, or you can go directly to
http://www.employees.org/~swb/draft-brim-lisp-analysis-00.txt.

   This draft answers questions raised in the IRTF Routing Reseach Group
   Design Goals.  A future version may also address issues raised in the
   IETF Routing Area Problem Statement.

Scott