Subject: Re: PILC ASYM status / thanks

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 16:03:02 -0400

I'm afraid that I'm quite uncomfortable with the current state of section 3.  
Jeff and I exchanged emails and, while I don't want to speak for him, 
indicates that he also has concerns.

I'm not going to take time just yet to launch into a complete dissection of 
section 3, or try to provide text to fix it.  Jeff and I provided explanatory 
information concerning asymetries inherent in two very widely deployed 
Internet access technologies.  The editors transformed what we provided into a 
form which is at best muddled and not very informative and at worst 
misleading. The rationale was apparently to reduce the number of words 
concerning subnet specific things.  In addition, there were some specific 
concerns that Jeff and I raised, both privately with the editors and on the 
main list, that were not taken into account in the present draft.  Instead of 
revisiting these things, I'd like to pop this up a level and ask for group 
discussion of where this section is going.

I believe the objective was to describe how some real world subnets can have 
significant asymetries, and to point out how the normalized bandwidth ratio 
can vary due to factors at the subnet layer.    It seems to me that there are 
a few options:
1) Get rid of most of the text, and just have a list of subnets that have 
asymetries
2) Move examples of specific asymetric subnets into an appendix to the draft, 
and expand to make it informative (ask folks who are expert in the subnet 
technology to provide text to meet the objectives, and keep editorial changes 
to matters of style and grammar only)
3) Keep examples of specific asymetric subnets in section 3, expand to make it 
informative
4) Do a better job of explaining mechanisms that cause asymmetry, and give 
specific examples (kind of like it's organized now, but less muddled)
5) Do both (2) and (4)
6) Go to last call, as is, and revisit during last call.

I like (2).  Any other opinions?

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:34:53 +0100 (BST)

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Dan Grossman wrote:

> misleading.

Oh my god, it's the security discussion all over again.

(Gorry's away from his email this week, so his response will be
delayed - the point of this email.)

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>