On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 09:47:38AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Mar 7, 2013, at 07:55, Toerless Eckert <eckert(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Really ? You don't think a good AD should primarily look for factual
evidence
(lab, simulation, interop, ..) results produced by others to judge whether
sufficient work was done to proof that the known entry critera are met
(like no congestion cllapse) - instead of trying to judge those solely
by himself/herself ?
How do you judge the evidence without understanding it?
Because it came and was agreed upon by sufficiently many experts in the field.
(E,g,. I wouldn't want an AD taking in lab/simulation/interop input as
"factual evidence"...
I also wouldn't want an AD to wait for "proof" of anything in this space.)
Correct me if i am wrong, but the way i remember mostly from the outside how
GDoI was moved forward in the IETF was to have simulations be done through IRTF
which was provided as evidence to answer to questions raised by the IETF
process,
like for example scalability and dynamic behavior.
In general, i think an AD needs to know what questions about a problem had to
be raised and
answered positively by experts for proposals to move forward and in the first
place
make sure this process (defining and answering questions) happens in the first
place.
Cheers
Toerless
Grüße, Carsten
PS.: I just spent a day at CeBIT. One guy there reported to that he has seen
35000 active devices on his WiFi snooper.
I'm not quite sure what that means, but he seemed to be implying "at a
specific point in time".
Go congestion control that. And then "prove" that your solution works.
Somehow, we still seem to be deploying WiFi, nonetheless, and some even
consider WiFi a success.
Would your hypothetical AD waiting for "sufficient work was done" have
approved WiFi? In 1998?
--
---
Toerless Eckert, eckert(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy!