Subject: RE: [manet] FW: Intended status of produced IDs

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:58:43 +0100

From: Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> However, draft-ietf-manet-smf-04 says (as noted by Teco):
> "Intended status: Standards Track". Is this a glitch?

I'm not an author of that one, but I believe it is.
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-03 doesn't say Standards Track,
but should. That is a glitch. draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-02
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-02 and draft-ietf-manet-dymo-08
(the latter I'm also not an author) say Standards Track,
and should.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

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

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:54:41 +0100

> I do not suggest holding up current work until a single protocol
> could be developed.

OK, good, we're on the same page there. And we're on the same
page with regard to the desirability of work somewhere in this
area too, but I can't take that discussion much further at the
moment.

> Documents in the IETF have been required to have applicability
> statements before they could be standardized.  I think it would be
> very appropriate in this case.

I agree they should have applicability statements, and indeed
OLSRv2 and NHDP (and other documents) have them. But I don't
think OLSRv2 should have an applicability statement that says
"don't use OLSRv2 here, use DYMO", or indeed vice versa.
(In fact the two are better independent, both technically and
in terms of procedures, with any references to both in other
documents.)

Roughly speaking I wouldn't say "don't use protocol X with
more than N nodes or where nodes are sparse" (for example)
but rather "protocol X is particularly suited to cases with
less than N nodes, and where these are dense". Or something
like that. We already go down that route.