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

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:16:31 +0100

>Yes indeed, this is what the Charter says:
>> Using mature components from previous work on experimental reactive
and
>> proactive protocols, the WG will develop two Standards track routing
>> protocol specifications:
> 
>> - Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP)
>> - Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP)
> 
>> If significant commonality between RMRP and PMRP protocol modules is
> observed, the WG may decide to go with a converged approach.

> Remark the bottom phrase hinting eventually at one converged approach.

The bottom phrase hinting at POSSIBLE converged approach. The work over
the last few years has not done so, and is in a position to go with two
protocols. It is not in a position to go with one, and will not be in
an acceptable timescale.

> I am very surprised it's said so, because I think exactly the
opposite: 
> all work that is not able to converge and tends to generate
two-or-more 
> protocols for same task is clearly experimental type, visionary and 
> exploratory work, but not 'standard'.  This work is useful but is not 
> necessary a standard.  The very meaning (IMHO) of the word standard is

> that there's only one way of doing it.

Just to name one example, there is more than one standard IP routing
protocol outside MANETs.

There are many other things that have multiple competing standards.
MAC/PHY layers, mobile phone systems, computer languages, the
list is endless. I'm actually struggling to think of a major case
where we don't - we even have IPv4 and IPv6.

In short, I think that argument fails.

********************************************************************
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: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:40:28 +0200

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>>> proactive protocols, the WG will develop two Standards track
>>> routing protocol specifications: - Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP) 
>>> - Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP) If significant commonality
>>> between RMRP and PMRP protocol modules is
> The bottom phrase hinting at POSSIBLE converged approach. The work
> over the last few years has not done so, and is in a position to go
> with two protocols. It is not in a position to go with one, and will
> not be in an acceptable timescale.

Ok.

>>  exploratory work, but not 'standard'.  This work is useful but is
>> not necessary a standard.  The very meaning (IMHO) of the word
>> standard is
> 

I thought it would be said so, ok, but remark the 3 (RIP, OSPF, BGP, not
any other StdsTrack) all have their companion applicability statement
RFCs, so one doesn't deploy RIP on a inter-ISP network.

> MAC/PHY layers, mobile phone systems, computer languages, the list is
> endless. I'm actually struggling to think of a major case where we
> don't - we even have IPv4 and IPv6.

Laughing :-) that looks so true at first sight.  Still there's only one
MAC for LAN, only one PHY for a frequency and generally one computer
language for a application type.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________