| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Bob:
Thanks a lot for stressing the issue. May I add that the aim is not to successfully choose either of two proposals, but to: - Create a proposal that has best of all proposals,
so good features from different proposals are brought in to create a framework
for further discussions
I wouldn't want to go to January to vote on choosing one proposal - I'd like to create a proposal out of all the proposals. And I'd like to add things that are not currently present in any of the proposals. And I'd like to continually enhance the proposal in subsequent meetings. It would be a proposal we create, we own, and we become accountable for in case it doesn't succeed. Currently even we, just a bunch of people within a closed group, can't agree on different buffer and fairness schemes and we see lots of holes in different approaches. It would get worse when it goes to the industry. As technology improves people would start putting more queues, one per node and one per class, to give fine-grained QoS/CoS, and to avoid HOL problems. If RPR freezes specs to the hardware level and doesn't allow use of advanced techniques in traffic engineering, people will simply bypass it and move on. Bob, may I propose that we don't even raise an item in January meeting to vote on choosing one from many proposals, but to start work on a draft document based on items from different proposals. Sometimes we may leave two/three options to start with and complete the draft. Later we can review the options and coalesce into one. As long as there is a move to choose one proposal from many proposals, proponents would continue to stick by their stand and try to win votes. They will keep showing simulations after simulations ad nauseam, but not move an inch from where they have been all along :-) =Pankaj RDLove wrote: All, as we get ready for our upcoming January interim meeting we need to redouble our efforts to bring the three RPR proposals into agreement. There should be multiple avenues of communication between the Alladin and Gandalf camps, and additional efforts to integrate the DVJ proposal. I am concerned that moving toward agreement is being hampered because too few people are involved. We need to work through differences and ideally develop a single proposal going into the January meeting. My best technical judgment is that the group will have a much better first draft if there is a single proposal going into the January meeting, than if we arrive at a decision by voting. The reason is obvious. Voting at a meeting does not allow the quiet reflection time that a carefully crafted proposal can have that has been studied closely over a more significant time period beforehand. In addition, if we go into the January meeting with a single proposal, we will have the entire meeting to focus on and potentially improve that proposal, rather than arguing the merits of competing proposals or creating a new compromise proposal. For the benefit of all RPR stakeholders I implore everyone involved in this standards development to study the existing proposals and seek out ways of bringing them together. Best regards, Robert D. Love |