From: "Sally Floyd" <floyd@icir.org> ... "the IAB *is* mulling over the idea of where to go next in terms of discussions of the overall architecture..." ======= Since the ISOC is going to focus on cash-flow from the .ORG Registry operation and appears to be focused on Washington D.C. and Geneva Switzerland... Would it not make sense for the IETF to become part of ICANN ?...instead of the ISOC...? With ICANN at the top of the 0:0 .ARPA Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) structure, revenues can be derived from address space leasing and the $1 per year fees on domain names. That revenue could be used to construct an IETF Research Lab on a ranch ICANN could buy in California, overlooking the ocean. Another option would be for the IAB to be permanently housed in their own building in the Presidio. Forty year leases are available. http://www.presidiotrust.org http://www.atthepresidio.org/ http://www.presidiotrust.org/leasing/non_residential/building951.asp Northern California may be a better location for the IETF and IAB than Southern California of the East Coast of the U.S. All that money from the .ORG registrations will have to be spent somewhere, in order to appear as a non-profit. It might be good to have a scenic place to "mull" over those architecture directions... Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sally Floyd" <floyd@icir.org> To: "Lloyd Wood" <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk> Cc: <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Impending publication: draft-iab-considerations-02.txt > Lloyd - > > >Couldn't this document be effectively combined with > >draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt > >(also headed for informational) > > > >to make a much more comprehensive document that starts frmo RFC1958 > >and builds up? > > I don't think so, actually. draft-iab-considerations-02.txt is > rather different from RFC1958 and draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt > in that draft-iab-considerations-02.txt largely poses questions to > be asked, without necessarily giving answers, while the other two > documents are more oriented towards giving guidelines and principles. > One could argue that these are just differences in style, but I > don't think that is the case. I think there is a useful place for > stating questions that we know are important questions, without > making too many claims about knowing the answers to the questions. > > Our draft draft-iab-considerations-02.txt does have a section about > draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt, and the related paper by Willinger > and Doyle on "Robustness and the Internet: Design and Evolution", > in Section 13.3 on "Discussion: complexity, robustness, and fragility"; > I happen to be a particular fan of the Willinger and Doyle paper. > That does not mean, however, that I agree with it, or with > draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt; my own view, which I have > communicated privately to the authors of both documents, are that > both documents are a touch one-sided, seeing the great problems > introduced by added complexity, but not always seeing the > sometimes-compelling motivations behind that added complexity. > (I am particularly aware of the benefits when it comes to TCP, which > is the area where I have been involved in adding complexity for > some time now...) The challenge, it seems to me, is how to accommodate > added complexity when it is sufficiently compelling, while minimizing > the fragility and overhead that might go along with that added > complexity. > > This means that, while I find draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt > useful and interesting, I personally disagree with some of it. For > example, about layering, I think that layering is sometimes one of > the properties that allows complexity with robustness instead of > fragility, and that very careful, explicit, and conscious communication > between layers, when necessary, might be one of the strategies that > allows layering to work. This is different from the conclusions > in draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt. And some parts of > draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt, e.g., the later parts on packet > vs. circuit switching, or the parts on the relationship between > complexity and the capital and operational expenditures for carrier > IP networks, are quite different in topic from > draft-iab-considerations-02.txt, and properly belong in an individual > submission rather than a document from the IAB (in my opinion). > > And those are just my own private opinions. I don't know what > all of the opinions would be from the other IAB members. I don't > see that it is necessary (or that it would be productive or useful) > to attempt an IAB-wide consensus, or an IETF-wide consensus, on all > of the issues in draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt. Though the IAB > *is* mulling over the idea of where to go next in terms of discussions > of the overall architecture... > > - Sally > http://www.icir.org/floyd/ >