Subject: Re: [rrg] Non-consensus (was LISP critique)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:11:20 -0500 (EST)

> From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>

    > The document that we are compiling is a multi-contribution survey, and
    > is NOT the consensus of the RG. There is nothing "official" about the
    > opinions represented in the document.

Yes, but people never read the fine print...

I had thought it not desirable for people involved in proposals to write
critiques of proposals they were involved with, because I thought 'external'
views would be better.

However, since the only existing LISP critique has, in my view, major problems
(too much focus on minor, passing problems, and not enough attention to
unavoidable architectural limitations), I will prepare an alternative, and you
and Lixia can pick whichever seems best.

	Noel

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:57:11 +0100

Hi Noel,

> critiques of proposals they were involved with, because I thought 'external'

As long as the process is clearly stated in the compendium, I think it
is nearly unavoidable to have at least some experts do some of the
critiquing.  My favorite example of this was what happened on the
selection of AES.  Many of the proponents of various proposals critiqued
the others.  NIST had a joyous time reading through all of those.  But
who better to do those critiques?  Uninvolved fence sitters with no skin
in the game?

And so to your point - I think ALL critiques should be included.  I see
no reason why Tony or Lixia should have to choose.

Eliot

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:58:30 -0800

> Yes, but people never read the fine print...

Well, that's NOT our problem.  If folks choose to avoid the words as 
presented, or choose to misinterpret because they read every other word, 
then that is THEIR incompetence.  We do not dumb things down to match.

> critiques of proposals they were involved with, because I thought 'external'

Agreed and strongly preferred.

> and Lixia can pick whichever seems best.

Hurry please.  I want to get this draft out quickly.

Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:07:48 -0800

> no reason why Tony or Lixia should have to choose.

The document then becomes infinite.  No thank you.

Tony

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:09:49 +0100

> The document then becomes infinite.  No thank you.

I think that's a theoretical problem, Tony, but is it a practical one?

Eliot

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:46:00 +1100

Short version:   Noel seems to have asserted that my critique of LISP
                 is inadequate - due to being focused on minor
                 details rather than real architectural problems.

                 Is he suggesting there should be a critique of LISP
                 being a Core-Edge Separation architecture?  If so,
                 please see my next message.

Hi Noel,

>From our recent exchanges I thought you viewed my LISP critique as
being in some way unreasonable - and that this was the basis for your
concern that it might be viewed as some kind of official RRG
assessment of LISP.

Now, in msg05739, you wrote that in your view my critique has:

> major problems (too much focus on minor, passing problems, and not
> enough attention to unavoidable architectural limitations), I will
> prepare an alternative, and you and Lixia can pick whichever seems
> best.

so I think you consider my critique as being too *weak*.

You don't support your assertion with any details.

Unless you can really change my mind about LISP, I am unwilling to
try to accommodate your concerns in the critique I wrote.  I have
only one word left and I don't want to take anything out.

I hope you will write a critique of LISP which you are happy with.
Likewise anyone else who thinks I missed something or was
unreasonable in some way.

Eliot suggested that all critiques be included in the RRG report.  As
long as they are reasonably well written, and don't overlap too much,
I support this.

So far, no more than one critique has been written for each proposal,
though I haven't yet worked on RANGER, and Lixia and I think the ILNP
critique should go further.

Tony, being mathematically inclined, reacted to the prospect of there
being two or perhaps even more critiques for a single proposal as
being a step too far towards the dangers of Infinity.

If you want your critique of LISP to go in the RRG Report, then I
will support this inclusion.

Here's another mathematical perspective.  The LISP team were allowed
1000 words to help RRG folks understand their proposal - but they
used only 206.  So perhaps Lixia and Tony could accept further
critiques for LISP to a maximum of 794 words without breaking LISP's
share of the space budget.

With a less restrictive word limit, I would have mentioned more about
LISP - more positive things.  I would have noted that it is a
Core-Edge Separation (CEE) scheme and that this is a very good thing
for various reasons, compared to the alternatives: Core-Edge
Elimination (CEE) or attempting to soup up the existing interdomain
routing system with improved hardware, some new BGP version, or
something which replaces the current BGP-based DFZ.

In my view, the LISP-folks (and the designers of APT, TRRP, TIDR and
probably RANGER) took the correct fork in the architectural road by
choosing a Core-Edge Separation architecture.  My arguments for why
are in section 4.1 of:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-whittle-ivip-arch-03

If your critique of LISP is in part that it is a Core-Edge Separation
architecture, then I think it would be best to write up a general
critique of CES architectures, and therefore, I assume a general
argument for the superiority of at least one CEE architecture.  That
is the subject of my next message.

  - Robin

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:15:54 -0800

> I think that's a theoretical problem, Tony, but is it a practical one?

Yes, I think it is.

Tony

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:52:36 +1100

Hi Tony,

Thanks for incorporating my critique of LISP, which was improved with
the help of Noel Chiappa to correct two mistakes:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-04#section-2.2

Noel has written a second critique of LISP.  Both of us think our
critique is better, and more fundamental, than the other.  Neither of
us would be happy with just the other's critique being in the RRG report.

The fact that mine was written before Noel's shouldn't matter.

There's a lot to criticise about LISP because it has been developed
the most, has a bunch of problems and has long been the most
prominent potential solution to the routing scaling problem.  It has
an IETF WG, a test network and a several people trying to write their
own implementations.

>> I think that's a theoretical problem, Tony, but is it a practical one?

How could there be a practical problem, since the LISP designers only
used 206 words for their summary?  So there's no physical shortage of
space.

Perhaps you think it would be a bit unbalanced to have more words of
criticism for LISP than for other proposals - but maybe LISP won't be
the only one that requires more than 500 words in order for RRG
people to be happy.  The 500 word limit is completely arbitrary, is
half the length of the summary's limit and did not result from any
kind of consensus-seeking process.

I think that if the LISP team were supporting the RRG process more
assiduously, they would have far more than 500 critical words to say
about Ivip.  Just because some summaries are within 500 words doesn't
mean this is the best outcome.

Besides, look at some proposals currently languishing without anyone
bothering enough about them to write a critique.  Using the unused
space (794 words) to enable more critical honours to be bestowed upon
LISP seems like a good idea to me.

  - Robin