Subject: RE: [arch-d] Defining terms

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:48:15 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Day [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:08 PM
> To: Bound, Jim; John Leslie
> Cc: John Day; [email-masked]; Noel Chiappa
> Subject: RE: [arch-d] Defining terms
> 
> At 14:52 -0500 2006/03/23, Bound, Jim wrote:
> >Valid point but I took the BGP more as abstraction to define a layer
> >called routing for discussion. IP model don't call out a 
> routing layer.
> >Forwarding is different than extraplation of routes and discovery
> >clearly.
> 
> But we are trying to *find* the right model.  We can't let the fact 
> that the IP model doesn't call out a routing layer affect our view. 

I don't think that was being done it was a discussion regarding what is
implemented in some cases today simply as part of the discussion.  That
in my view helps with what can be done tomorrow.

> The IP model may be wrong, or not quite right.

I for one have not on any mail made such a judgement.  Making it better
to me is the key objective.  For me this is not about right or wrong.  I
don't like that we have lost the end-to-end model on the Internet.

>  It was assuming that 
> it was right that got us where we are. We have to find what is really 
> going on. Once we understand that, then we can worry about how to 
> engineer it.

Agreed but as I said above that is how I "perceived" the discussion and
comment.

> 
> As you tell kids when they are doing their math homework:  Don't skip 
> steps. It will only get you in trouble. ;-) (Always hated it when my 
> father told me that.)

Agree and I think what is now is part of the steps at various points
within the discussion.

> 
> >
> >More important to your mail yes we need to find consensus 
> but only rough
> >consensus to keep moving once that is achieved.  But then we 
> get to the
> >running code part :--)
> 
> Ahh, yes science by popularity.  Wonder how often that has 
> been the case.

I cannot parse how you came up with science by popularity from my
comment. If you beleive rough consensus is popularity then I guess that
is a point.  The alternative is elitism and that I find vulgar, and my
view is kings should have heads chopped off :--), so support the rough
consensus.

I don't think you were speaking of running code as that is cleary
important and has nothing to do with popularity, and more about proof of
concept.  

> 
> rough consensus applies to electro-political engineering. 

We can agree to disagree, but I am pretty sure this list and the IETF
support and will continue to support rough consensus.

> I didn't 
> realize that was the domain of this discussion.  I thought this was a 
> more scientific inquiry. Science must follow the data regardless of 
> how unpopular it may be.

Well I could remind all Philosophy is the Mother of All Sciences, but I
won't.  Part of scientific inquiry is analysis, and part of analysis is
discussion, censoring discussion to suit any one individuals needs is
probably not going to happen in the IETF or in most forums I work in
unless it is an elitist group and then I usually leave because I don't
find that type of crowd very respectful to others and I don't deal well
with disrespect nor put up with it as one human on the planet, we all
have our limitations.

Best,
/jim

> Take care,
> John

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:02:27 -0500

>don't like that we have lost the end-to-end model on the Internet.

Well, right or wrong here is used to mean a good theory that fits the 
data and makes good predictions, i.e. when you try to do things 
hadn't thought about it helps rather than gets in the way.

We have lost the end-to-end model because we had half an addressing 
architecture.

To follow Alexis comment the other day, we basically have an 
unfinished demo on our hands. ;-)

>view is kings should have heads chopped off :--), so support the rough

Science is elitist, not democratic.  It goes with evidence and proof. 
It is normally the case that what becomes the "right" answer was not 
a view held by the majority of scientists, let alone the majority of 
the population.  In fact, it is almost expected that science shows 
that our intuitions about things are usually wrong. ;-)  Damned 
embarrassing!

Now that said, all models/theories in science are working 
assumptions.  None are True.  Our job is always to try to prove them 
wrong.

>important and has nothing to do with popularity, and more about proof of

Yea, no I wasn't.  But running code has its concerns as well.  Of 
course, it is good to ensure that it works and can be done.  But I 
often worry that given natural laziness, it limits the range of 
implementation strategies that get tried.  Have you seen Jacobsen's 
recent stuff on improving TCP that seems to indicate that everyone 
was just doing what Berkeley did which was pretty much what Multics 
did and it wasn't the best way?  Also running code has the tendency 
to become the spec again limiting variety but these are nits.

>support and will continue to support rough consensus.

The problem in the IETF isn't rough consensus per se.  All standards 
committees I have ever been in use it at the working group level. 
The problem in the IETF is that they have an organization without 
checks and balances on the individual.  This doesn't mean that what 
comes out doesn't work, it means that the process is open to 
manipulation and is exploited.  The dynamics of representative 
organizations should go on elsewhere.

>with disrespect nor put up with it as one human on the planet, we all

I think a tyranny of the majority is more likely.  Often in science, 
the new idea is quite unpopular. Consider how long the idea that 
continents moved was around before the bulk of the community came to 
the idea.  No, scientific inquiry is an odd bird.

Take care,
John

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:02:27 -0500

Take care,
John