On 04.03 00:55, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
... I do think that Henk's message lacked finesse though.
To the contrary; I consider it very appropriate and well formulated.
I beleive you should compose a very well drafted message explaining exactly
- what we are proposing to do - what effects we expect - why the effects people are concerned about will not occur
and ask for comments. This message should be OKed by Henk and maybe it would be good to have it signed by both Henk and Lorenzo. We should do this relatively quickly but without loosing the "well drafted".
I would be happy to do this if you think it stands a chance.
The issue I fear is that people in favour or neutral to these experiments won't reply to the thread and only a (possibly small number of) more conservative and/or uninformed people will be quick to criticize and opt-out.
At the moment the nay-sayers have it clearly because we proposed to use their resources without their consent.
How much detail do you think we need? Do you think that to convince people we need to describe all our algorithms (some of which we haven't even fully developed yet), or do you think a more general description would be enough?
Exactly what I wrote: """""" - general description of the routes announced - prefixes - as paths / as sets - what do we expect to see in general terms - routing table effects - forwarding table effects - do they matter with these prefixes ? no! - concerns we have heared - c1; why it is not an issue - c2; why it is not an issue - ... Are there any other concerns? """"""""
Of course we would still provide much more detail on the principles we want to use and how we are trying to accomplish it.
That's optional but some of it may help to convince people. Daniel