Subject: [rrg] Point of order

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:38:58 -0700

I'd like to point out to the folks that want to continue the discussion 
that the consensus check under way is not dependent on the ongoing (and 
welcome) discussion.  If you do wish to continue the discussion in any 
binding way, please vote against the current proposal.  Many folks who 
appear adamant against the current proposals have not yet voted.

Again, the poll can be found here: http://doodle.com/9sybb8dmk5phvp99

The poll closes at Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:52:50 -0700 (one week from when 
initiated).

Now, back to the fray!

Regards,
Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:33:55 -0700

> The poll closes at Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:52:50 -0700 (one week from when 

Hi all,

The poll has now closed.  The ayes have it, 10 to 4 (71%), which is 
reasonably clear consensus.  The definitions listed are hereby adopted.

Regards,
Tony

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:51:08 -0400

> reasonably clear consensus.  The definitions listed are hereby adopted.

10 people would have to hum awfully loud to form a consensus among the
crowd RRG draws at the meetings.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

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

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:10:57 -0700

> crowd RRG draws at the meetings.

Not if the rest of them were silent, which is effectively what has happened.

;-(

Tony

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:08:17 +1000

Short version:    Lots of messages on precisely defining terms which
                  I think do not need it.

                  A year ago the "Summary and Analysis" documents
                  for LISP, APT, Ivip, Six/One Router, TRRP and
                  some others were completed - but the co-chairs
                  have never discussed them.

I stayed out of this discussion and vote because I believe the words
Identifier, Locator and Address don't need and shouldn't be expected
to have precise definitions - because they are frequently used in
ways which depend on the conceptual framework of the author.
Likewise, I think it would not be productive to try to try to make
all religious leaders agree on the definition of "God" - or for
psychologists to agree on the precise meaning of "The Unconscious".

Not all words have such context dependent meanings.  AFAIK
"Namespace" only seems to have one meaning:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/namespace/

and I couldn't find a single debate about its meaning, or any IETF
people who felt the need to define its meaning.

> crowd RRG draws at the meetings.

Of the ~147 messages in this discussion, the breakdown of frequency
per author (18 authors) is something like this, with Tony's 33
messages first:

  33  23  19  18  11   9   8   4   3   2   1
                                   3   2   1
                                   3   2   1
                                   3

14 votes may indicate a lack of interest in the debate or a lack of
confidence that a No would make any difference.

I think the co-chairs have a difficult task getting consensus on
anything, and when they do, since there is no signed-up constituency
I guess it could be hard to make a decision.  Opinions weighted by
effort expended by the author?  Anonymous votes, where a lurker's
opinion counts as much as that of someone who wrote pages of
thoughtful material?

I think the definitions are not bad:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04724.html

but I don't see how these help us solve the scalable routing problem.

This is not some mathematical problem awaiting solution via profound
insights, perhaps based on semantics developed with penetrating rigour.

It is a problem whose solutions are tightly bound by the need for
compatibility with all existing hosts and most existing routers - and
by the need to ensure immediate benefits for early adopters, since
the solution will only work if it is voluntarily adopted by most
end-user networks which want multihoming, portability etc.

I will sit out the next debate too: "Properties of identifiers".

It is a year since we (those who made detailed proposals - AKA the
Charter's "candidate designs") wrote our 8 page "Summary and
Analysis" documents as requested by the co-chairs.  These are linked
to from:

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

I just updated the Ivip one today - but it is now 17 pages, in part
because it now has to cover Modified Header Forwarding:

   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/Ivip-summary.pdf

The co-chairs have never commented on or supported discussion of
these.  I think this would be an interesting and productive discussion.

  - Robin

---

From: Xiaoliang Zhao <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:55:17 -0400

> end-user networks which want multihoming, portability etc.
I would consensus on this one.

Best,
----
Xiaoliang (Leon) Zhao
Sr. Network Engineer
Public IP Global Network Engineering
Verizon Business

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:56:19 -0400

> Not if the rest of them were silent, which is effectively what has happened.

Hi Tony,

Had only two people responded and both said "yes", you'd know better
than to call it a consensus. I'm not sure why 14 respondents including
dissent should suggest a different conclusion.

A consensus check is not a vote. Consensus is an affirmative finding,
not a balance between affirmative and negative. Unlike a vote, there
are three possible outcomes: consensus for, consensus against and no
consensus.

For a weak consensus (or "rough consensus" if you prefer the IETF
parlance) you're looking for one of two situations:

Situation A:
1. The stakeholders are present
2. A simple majority join the consensus.
3. No more than a single-digit-percentage join the dissent

Situation B:
1. The stakeholders are present
2. A significant minority join the consensus.
3. No dissent.

If the meeting attendance is any guide, 14 respondents is not a
majority of the RRG. Further, there was nearly 30% dissent.

Your methodology was in error. By failing to consider the stakeholders
present but non-responsive, you pre-eliminated the possibility of "no
consensus," requiring respondents to either vote for or against the
particular definition. That's not a consensus; that's a vote.

Corrected for non-response, the proper conclusion from your data is:
No consensus.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Dow Street <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:18:49 -0700

I did not personally vote before the poll closed, but if forced to  
chose I would probably have said "nea".

I partly didn't vote because I do not think agreeing to, or perhaps  
divining, the "pure" definition for "locator" moves us very far along  
the path toward a solution.  At the start of this discussion I did,  
but I don't now.  There seem to be a lot of different kinds of things  
we want to talk about, 3 or 4 of which could reasonably map  
(semantically) to the term "locator".

As it stands, I think the definition brought to the poll is a little  
too fuzzy to be useful (for reasons I have described previously), but  
if it is helpful for others, so be it.

R,
Dow

On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:56 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:36:00 -0700

> I would consensus on this one.

Me too. That's 3-0.

Dino

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:42:13 -0400

> reasonably clear consensus.  The definitions listed are hereby adopted.

Could you stick them on tools or somewhere, so we don't have to search
through mail to find them?

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:48:19 -0400

Having gone back to figure out what "It" in the below quoted text is, I 
disagree.

If "it" is a solution to the problems of routing scalability, 
reliability, robustness, etc that the rrg was chartered to work on, then 
I do not believe we ever agreed that compatibility with all existing 
hosts was a requirement.

Deployability in such a way that existing hosts and existing routers can 
interwork with any solution, deployability such that there is value in 
incremental deployment, and migratability so that incremental deployment 
is possible are all things I would buy into.  But I do not buy that we 
can not adopt solutions where the primary value requires changes in 
hosts, or in many routers over the long term.

And I do not agree that getting clear terminology is irrelevant to 
getting to such a goal.  I have frequently found it very confusing, and 
a hinderance to progress, to realize that the person I was talking with 
meant something different by the terms he was using than I meant by 
them.  Yes, it happens.  But that does not make it helpful.  Getting a 
set of terms we can agree upon, and using them, can be very helpful.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Dow Street <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:50:21 -0700

On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> getting to such a goal.  I have frequently found it very confusing,  
> and a hinderance to progress, to realize that the person I was  
> talking with meant something different by the terms he was using  
> than I meant by them.  Yes, it happens.  But that does not make it  
> helpful.  Getting a set of terms we can agree upon, and using them,  
> can be very helpful.

I am not sure if your comment above was in response to mine - if so,  
let me clarify:

- I do think getting clear and agreed upon terminology is important.

- I personally do not think the polled definition of locator is  
clear.  However, there seems to be some agreement of others that it is  
clear enough.

- I do *not* think it is useful to argue whether (clearly defined  
thing A) vs (clearly defined thing B) should be called a "locator".

If your comment above was not in response to mine, then disregard!

R,
Dow

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:09:41 -0700

Hi Bill,

> dissent should suggest a different conclusion.

In fact, if only two people responded, I'd conclude that the rest didn't 
care and thus it was acceptable.  Yes, that counts as rough consensus.

> 2. A significant minority join the consensus.

Interesting, but that doesn't match my experience, my expectations, or 
my criteria.

> particular definition. That's not a consensus; that's a vote.

Call it what you like.  If folks don't hum, then they don't contribute 
to the consensus.  There are currently 463 members of the RRG, based on 
the mailing list membership.  By your criteria, we need to have input 
from nearly two hundred people to reach any kind of consensus.  That's a 
guarantee of never making progress.  No thank you.  If folks care, 
they'll speak up.  If they don't care, then it must not be important to 
them and we should move on.

> Corrected for non-response, the proper conclusion from your data is:

Thank you for your concern.  I'm sorry that you feel like you've lost 
and that I'm being unresaonable.  All I'm trying to do is to move forward.

Cheers,
Tony

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:53:24 -0400

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Tony Li <[email-masked]> wrote:
> There are currently 463 members of the RRG, based on the
> mailing list membership
> If only two people responded, I'd conclude that the rest didn't

Yikes! Tony, here's what our old friend Webster has to say about consensus:

consensus
n.
1       an opinion held by all or most
2       general agreement, esp. in opinion

The notion that because the other 461 subscribers of the list were not
offended enough to respond constitutes consensus in favor defies the
plain English meaning of the word consensus.

Last year, I and most of the rest of the group ignored your
declaration of consensus on "fix it for IPv6 first" and continued
focusing solely on approaches which work for IPv4. I hope you find a
better way to evaluate consensus but as it stands I'll ignore this one
too.

For the record, if you were paying attention, the closest to the
actual consensus was roughly:

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Dow Street <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I do not think agreeing to, or perhaps
> divining, the "pure" definition for "locator" moves us very far along the
> path toward a solution. At the start of this discussion I did, but I don't
> now

+1.

Regards,
Bill

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:14:42 -0400

Speaking only for myself, while I like solutions that help v4, I do not 
see a problem with solving the architectural problem only, or first, for 
v6.  To a significant degree the architectural problems for v4 are 
self-limiting.  And v6 is still in sufficient flux that changes are far 
more practical.

Yours,
Joel

William Herrin wrote:
...
> better way to evaluate consensus but as it stands I'll ignore this one
...

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:44:51 -0400

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Speaking only for myself, while I like solutions that help v4, I do not see
> a problem with solving the architectural problem only, or first, for v6.

Joel,

Regardless of whether you see a problem with the idea, and despite the
alleged consensus for it, fixing the problem for IPv6 first is not, in
fact, what any of us are actually doing.

The supposed consensus was false. If there was a consensus from that
debate, it was that a solution process that failed to also resolve the
problem for IPv6 would not be acceptable. Nor surprisingly, this
latter statement reflects our behavior since.

The point I endeavored to make to Tony is that he has repeated the
mistake of declaring a false consensus and is likely reap the same
results, namely damaged credibility and further difficulty shepherding
us researchers into a coherent team.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:02:07 -0700

Hi Bill,

> 2       general agreement, esp. in opinion

Here's what another authority has to say about consensus:

	Decisions are made by those who show up.
					-- Aaron Sorkin

> plain English meaning of the word consensus.

Perhaps.  However, it's still the rough consensus measurement mechanism 
that the IETF and this RG operate on.

Anyone have any stats on what percentage of registered voters actually 
vote?  ;-)

> focusing solely on approaches which work for IPv4. 

Interesting.  I don't recall that.  In fact, I've been very careful to 
do clear consensus checks.  The only mail message that I can find that 
was like that said:

	Solving v4 without solving v6 is just a bandaid.  Hopefully, we 		can 
do better.  IMHO, it would be sufficient to fix just the
	v6 side of things, but again, that's personal opinion.

Hope you read the whole sentence.

Of course, there is the non-trivial probability that I'm afflicted with 
Mad Cow disease and that I'm forgetting something that we've done.  I 
can find a few other consensus checks (interim meeting, renumbering, day 
of the meeting) but nothing that pertains to IPv6 vs. IPv4.  AFAIK, that 
is an open point of disagreement and vehement discussion.  ;-)

Care to cite chapter and verse?

Tony

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:06:34 -0400

Your comment that "fixing the problem for IPv6 first is not, in fact, 
what any of us are actually doing" is not, in fact, accurate.  I know of 
several proposals whcih have been presented to the RRG, some of which I 
have or am helping with, with take exactly that approach.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:06:58 +1000

Hi Bill and Joel,

Tony's message on rough consensus regarding IPv4 and IPv6
(2008-06-14) was:

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02477.html

      Last week we did a consensus check on the following:

      |Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6.  It may or
      |may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide
      |a path forward for IPv6.

      It's my judgement that we have rough consensus on this.  There
      is dissent, notably from Robin and Bill, but overall, it seems
      that we have rough consensus.

> fact, what any of us are actually doing.

Except for Six/One Router, which only works for IPv6.

> us researchers into a coherent team.

I agree - this supposed consensus on IPv4 / IPv6 doesn't really
reflect the view of the people who IMHO most matter in this field:
those who are actively devising potentially practical solutions.
LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP all work with IPv4 and IPv6 and AFAIK, are
all being developed initially for IPv4.

If it really is the consensus view that the RRG solution should
definitely fix the IPv6 scaling problem and may or may not fix the
IPv4 problem then maybe it is time to form a new group.

One measure of the seriousness of the scalable routing problem is the
number of DFZ routes (BGP advertised prefixes).  According to:

   http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/v6rpt.html

the IPv6 problem is about 1/256th that of the IPv4 problem.   With
the current doubling time of 2 years, it will take 16 years before
the IPv6 scaling problem approximates that of today's IPv4 problem.

So it would be an abrogation of our duty to consider solving the only
problem in town as merely an option.

I can't see anything in the RRG Charter which supports solving a
problem which won't exist for a decade or two before solving the
problem which exists right now.

I have already commented on the consensus check regarding terminology:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04786.html

Dow Street (04792) and Bill Herrin (04824) initially thought the
definitions were worth making - but changed their mind during the
debate.  I had this view from the start.

  - Robin

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:51:22 -0400

>        Decisions are made by those who show up.

Tony,

While that's a great quote, I'm not convinced that a fictional
character on a television show qualifies as an "authority."

http://www.westwingtranscripts.com/search.php?flag=getTranscript&id=22&keyword=made%20by%20those%20who%20show%20up#thequery

Even if he was an authority, the quote describes voting which our
friend Webster defines quite differently than consensus: "A decision
by a group on a proposal," not "general agreement."

> Interesting.  I don't recall that. In fact, I've been very
> careful to do clear consensus checks.

Since Robin has thoughtfully done all the work for me:

I suspect Mad Cow has nothing to do with it. As I do, you would like
to see the researchers on the group come together as a more effective
team. But voting doesn't forge a team... it splits folks apart. That's
why the IETF seeks consensus INSTEAD OF voting.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:59:59 -0700

Hi Robin,

>       that we have rough consensus.

Thank you for finding that.  Your Google-fu is clearly stronger than 
mine.  ;-)  As is your memory.  ;-)  Please note that this is 
significantly different than "fix it for IPv6 first".

As we did not, at the time, do an explicit consensus check on that at 
the time, you're well within your bounds to call for a formal check.

> Except for Six/One Router, which only works for IPv6.

And ILNP.  Both of which have no pretense of ever addressing IPv4.

>> latter statement reflects our behavior since.

If there's a semantic difference between this and the quote above, it's 
lost on me.

> all being developed initially for IPv4.

I'm sorry, but we are more egalitarian than that.  All participants 
count equally.

> the IPv6 scaling problem approximates that of today's IPv4 problem.

This is clearly only a tactical view.  The routing architectures of the 
two are wholly identical (with perhaps v6 address allocation policies 
being worse).  If anything, this is soley a measure of the lack of v6 
deployment.

In the strategic view, the v6 problem must (also?) be solved.

> problem which exists right now.

The RRG was chartered specifically to address the architectural issues. 
  Not the implementation issues.  If you want to fix the immediate 
scaling, I recommend that you go work at a router vendor and add more 
memory.  ;-)  Far more pragmatic and tactical than what we are doing.

Tony

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:07:39 +0200

Bill,

As a former chair in the IRSG I can tell you that Tony is within his 
rights to not even bother to call for a consensus.  He has done so, but 
he gets to determine what that consensus is.  That having been said, 
this is a research group.  If you don't like the definitions, don't use 
them in your work.  Nobody is forcing you to do so.

Eliot

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:07:36 -0700

Hi Bill,

> character on a television show qualifies as an "authority."

Actually, Aaron Sorkin was the writer.  ;-)

> by a group on a proposal," not "general agreement."

Ok, fine.  I don't want to quibble with you.  We're voting.

> why the IETF seeks consensus INSTEAD OF voting.

The IETF (and RRG) seek _rough_ consensus.  The fact that they do so by 
a show of hands, a hum, or a doodle poll is merely a matter of 
mechanism.  It's all just voting.

Tony

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:11:23 -0400

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Tony Li <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The IETF (and RRG) seek _rough_ consensus.  The fact that they do so by a
> show of hands, a hum, or a doodle poll is merely a matter of mechanism.
>  It's all just voting.

Tony,

The IETF seeks rough consensus AND RUNNING CODE. Show me the code that
justifies those definitions and I'll back down.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:28:37 -0400

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> As a former chair in the IRSG I can tell you that Tony is within his rights
> to not even bother to call for a consensus.  He has done so, but he gets to
> determine what that consensus is.

Eliot,

If you want to talk about rights, I'm within my rights to thoroughly
castigate the chair on those occasions when he determines consensus
poorly.

I'd rather talk about responsibilities. Tony has a responsibility to
accurately assess and report whether and what consensus the group
reaches. As a participant, I have a responsibility to call him on it
when I see him miss the mark and, if necessary, establish a well
justified record of dissent.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:41:33 +0200

On 4/17/09 7:28 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> reaches.

Where did you come up with that?  He has no such responsibility.  He has 
a responsibility to see that routing research is spurred from his 
group.  If he doesn't do that, then there's no point to the group.  And 
how he does that is *completely* up to him and Lixia.

> As a participant, I have a responsibility to call him on it

And he as a chair could boot your butt out, if he so chose.  This is 
*not* the IETF.

Eliot

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:50:09 -0400

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Tony Li <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If there's a semantic difference between this and the quote above, it's lost
> on me.

Tony,

The first calls for solving the problem for IPv6 and then considering
whether it can be backported to IPv4. The second calls for solving the
problem for IPv4 while avoiding any (unlikely) pitfalls that would
prevent an identical solution from working for IPv6.

The difference is not all that subtle.

> The RRG was chartered specifically to address the architectural issues.  Not
> the implementation issues.

That was, is and will continue to be a cop-out. An architecture is
dictated first and foremost by its achievability from the current
state of affairs.

Does no good to design an interstellar starship if you can't build an
engine that moves it. First figure out how to build an engine. Then
use the knowledge you gained to design a better starship.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:56:19 -0400

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> And he as a chair could boot your butt out, if he so chose.  This is not the
> IETF.

Then as critical as I'm being of this one specific decision, I'll just
have to rely on his good judgment not to take such a capricious
action, won't I?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:58:30 +0200

My point is that this is not a standards activity.  I question whether 
rough consensus is even a good idea in a research environment.  That a 
few people agree on terms is sufficient for *THEM* to collaborate 
together.  That others do not agree may be sufficient for those others 
to collaborate, and let the best research win.

Eliot

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:17:11 -0700

Hi Bill,

>>>> ... If there was a consensus from that
>>>> problem for IPv6 would not be acceptable.
> 

Where are you reading sequentiality into either statement?  I'm not 
finding any, and certainly none was implied.

> use the knowledge you gained to design a better starship.

Well, I think that we've amply demonstrated that we know how to build 
_a_ routing architecture.  We're using it.  And I think that we are all 
well aware that any possible solution must be achievable.  We may all 
have varying opinions about what is and is not achievable and the means 
of achieving them, but in the end, we need something of pragmatic value.

Some of us (admittedly not all) feel that working out the architecture 
prior to getting into the implementation detail is the prefered path. 
Having been down the reverse path, I have to tell you that "cut once 
then measure twice" is not a path to happiness.  ;-)

This is exactly what lead to the chartering of the RRG as a research 
effort, not an IETF WG and why we are chartered to work on architecture. 
  The output of the group is not supposed to be implementation or 
engineering, specifically because that would be out of scope for the 
IRTF.  Cop-out or not, that's what's in the charter.

Regards,
Tony

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:30:45 -0400

Well ...

In IETF WGs the product is supposed to be useful, so if only a few
people out of a group even care to express an opinion on a draft, it
shouldn't go forward.  In the IRTF, it all depends on what the group
is trying to accomplish.  I do not believe the RRG is just a pure,
unbounded research group at this time.  The RRG has been asked to
contribute to solving the Internet's problems, not just generate
ideas.  We have a mission and reality is rushing past.  

Whether Tony is doing a good job or not isn't a question.  Rather, the
question is whether he is doing what meets the needs of the group as
it exists, in order to accomplish the goals we have been given.  At
the end of a topic discussion, it should be clear to all whether a
rough consensus deserves to be declared, even the losers.  Since some
people (including me) think the process could be handled better, let's
make it very explicit.  If we get agreement on that we can work out
what's needed.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:42:31 -0400

As for v6 and v4, it depends on the scope of what you want to cover.
"Interesting" endpoints like new sensors and wireless devices can be
covered by v6-only approaches, but there will be a huge swathe of the
Internet which will remain v4 for many years.  They are not going
away.  If RRG ignores them, people will develop solutions for them,
probably involving NAT, and they will do not sooner than later.  If
you tell them you have a v6 solution and you'll get to v4 "later",
you've lost them.

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:19:10 -0400

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I question whether rough
> consensus is even a good idea in a research environment.  That a few people
> agree on terms is sufficient for THEM to collaborate together.  That others
> do not agree may be sufficient for those others to collaborate, and let the
> best research win.

Eliot,

That would be an unrecorded vote against an RRG-wide definition of
locator and identifier. You propose, rather, that they be given
meanings only within the context of the group collaborations in which
they're used.

Your statement above proves my point: There was no consensus.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Scott Brim <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At
> rough consensus deserves to be declared, even the losers.

Right here we have an insightful explanation of the concept we call "consensus."

> show of hands, a hum, or a doodle poll is merely a matter of mechanism.

http://collaborationzone.com/consensus-isnt-taking-a-vote/

"Sounds like voting to me. Same process, same outcome: An idea is
presented, there is discussion, the majority “wins,” and there is a
disaffected minority who agrees to “live with” the decision - until
the next chance they get to change it. Which means you’ll get to make
this decision again…and again…and again. And that’s pretty much the
opposite of a decision made by consensus."

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:36:20 -0400

> > do not agree may be sufficient for those others to collaborate, and let the

This is different from a pure research environment.  We have goals,
even milestones.

> opposite of a decision made by consensus."

Well, here I'll disagree.  Classic consensus is one of the few
outcomes we shouldn't bother pursuing.  We can produce:

  - one or more architectural possibilities, fully explored, which the
    IETF can then evaluate on its terms.  However, these shouldn't
    just be whatever ideas people want to produce (à la what Eliot
    said), since the RRG is in a special situation right now.  The RRG
    should have ROUGH consensus that they are worth taking to the IETF
    for further work.  Sometimes these ideas take themselves to the
    IETF and ask the IETF's opinion directly and the RRG doesn't have
    to make a decision.

  - a framework for the IETF to use when proceeding (this seems to be
    what Tony's recommendation draft is heading toward).

  - critiques of ideas that have been brought up elsewhere, not in
    RRG, in terms of the above.

---

From: Dow Street <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:49:43 -0700

William,

Is your primary concern:

a.  that the polled definition of locator is unclear
b.  that the polled definition is clear, but you think some other  
(clearly defined) thing should be called a "locator" instead
c.  that the consensus approach / process is insufficient, independent  
of this particular definition

Thanks,
Dow

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:32:11 -0400

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Dow Street <[email-masked]> wrote:
> b.  that the polled definition is clear, but you think some other (clearly
> defined) thing should be called a "locator" instead
> c.  that the consensus approach / process is insufficient, independent of
> this particular definition

Hi Dow,

I'm criticizing Tony because he described his definitions of "locator"
and "identifier" as a group consensus when it was very obviously
anything but.

Let me put it this way: I can live with it If Tony goes back to the
IAB and says, "For convenience, we voted to assign the following
meanings to the words identifier and locator." I have little use for
the definitions assigned, but I can find other words.

What bugs the heck out of me is the prospect that Tony goes back to
the IAB and says, "It is the consensus of the RRG that locator and
identifier mean..." or "We determined that locator and identifier
mean..."  That'd be dishonest. It badly misrepresents the situation
and it misrepresents my own participation in the process.

Now, I don't agree with the definitions. I also think a real consensus
process, while more difficult to accomplish, would be more helpful
than a vote. But my tirade is about the misrepresentation of the vote
and its results. It was a vote, not a consensus check, and the results
do not reflect a general consensus of the group.

Regards,
Bill Herrin