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

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:15:36 +0100

> What is the difference between experimental and pre-experimental?

Not a formal terminology, but what I meant was that AODV, OLSRv1
etc. are experimental, pre-experimental is things that haven't
even got to that stage yet.

>> Good
>> for research work (which I would be interested in) but
>> not for IETF standardisation.

> If a good candidate were put forward, implemented by several
> people, and shown to work, then I think it would be suitable for
> standardization.  This has not happened yet.

This is not viable in a timescale which would work for the IETF
process, or for many of us involved in it. This is not the time
for holding up the current work to go back into research mode,
quite the opposite. Outside the MANET WG, yes, in a hypothetical
future rechartering of the WG, maybe.

> However, there is little doubt that a single protocol would be
> better for the user community.

A single protocol a further two years in the future (which is, in
my opinion, an optimistic estimate based on precedent) or two
protocols now? I would definitely go for the latter.

> As it is, I think it will be crucial
> to have detailed applicability statements in the protocols.

Somewhere, maybe. In the formal protocol specifications, I disagree,
especially with the word detailed. The bounds on where DYMO and
OLSRv2 can be use are not firm, and the permitted applicability
of various optimisation techniques in OLSRv2 (that aren't fully
there in OLSRv1) and I suspect similarly in DYMO, make setting
hard boundaries in the protocol specification a bad idea. A
separate informative document discussing the issues, perhaps
(though I for one don't have the effort to work on it right now,
and nor do I think delaying matters to create it warranted).

> For
> instance, as I mentioned in my rushed-through presentation at
> the last IETF, the user should be alerted to choose proactive
> vs. reactive based on estimates of traffic density, which should
> be quantified in the applicabililty statements.

Traffic density is not all. Network size, traffic pattern stability
and so on all also matter. There's a lot of research there, which
the WG cannot afford to be sidetracked by.

********************************************************************
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: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:38:40 -0700

Hello Chris,

> future rechartering of the WG, maybe.
I do not suggest holding up current work until a single protocol
could be developed.
> protocols now? I would definitely go for the latter.
I do not suggest holding up current work until a single protocol
could be developed (*).

> and nor do I think delaying matters to create it warranted).
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.
> the WG cannot afford to be sidetracked by.
Well, it is the developers and, ultimately, the users who need to know.
I doubt that you are suggesting we hide these issues from the people
who would use the protocols.  Many answers are quite clear, and not
requiring additional research to be understood.  I can recite some, but
I doubt you would dispute this.

There's an old joke along the lines,
    "I'm busy, don't bother me with facts"...

And I would in no way suggest that you consciously hold to
that philosophy.  And I do not suggest delaying the documents (*).
However, I do strongly suggest that applicability statements
clearly state where the protocols are applicable, and where
possible cite existing work to back up the claimed
applicability.

Regards,
Charlie P.