Subject: RE: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1

From: "Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 20:04:34 -0400

Aniket, 

>What I find unfortunate is 
>that the very ability of the MDR draft and its author to accept this 
>process is being shown as a draft weakness. I thought it was a great 
>thing that everyone was contributing their ideas to the MDR 
>draft...but now is it really expected that MDR draft must be tip and 
>top by so and so date and no more changes must be done to it 
>henceforth???
>

The process that you refer to isn't a sign of "weakness". It shows 
immaturity. As Padma rightly pointed out, "To me this shows how 
much this is an experimental draft and it doesn't make sense to me 
to rush this into a standard." I agree with Padma's position. To 
address your last question, the draft *does* need to be in a fairly
stable state in order to continue. After all, by making it a draft, the 
implication is that this is something that vendors could (should) 
go implement. The continual churn in the draft indicates that it is not
ready for multiple implementations. 

In an earlier post, Richard said "But I still think we will progress
faster 
if we focus on a single solution, one that belongs to the WG rather than
a proprietary solution that is under the control of one company." 
I don't understand the reference to a "proprietary solution that is
under
the control of one company" -- I can't think of a post that has
advocated
this. Indeed, this seems counter to the IETF process. Having said that, 
I disagree that we will progress faster if we focus on a single
solution. 
Focusing on a single solution would dampen possible avenues of 
innovation. As I've stated before, pursuing multiple experimental 
approaches is something that has been done in other working groups, 
for exactly the same reasons that we have here. Pursuing information on 
the real-world behavior of the various flooding algorithms seems to me 
like the best approach to break the stalemate that currently exists in
the WG.

Regards,
Stan

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

---

From: Aniket Desai <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:36:04 -0400

Hi Stan,

Thanks. I find it fair to agree that MDR draft needs more testing in 
different scenarios with respect to different parameters/options. I 
also have no position on whichever draft goes experimental or should 
there be only 1 or 2 or n (pick any positive integer). Having said 
that, I will like to say 2 things that I have written to one member 
of this WG privately (language is slightly changed):

a) Simulations can and will play an important role in understanding 
the scalability properties of different proposals. There are many 
vendors, which have a serious need for simulating large scale 
wireless networks (typical example: WiMax) today. I have a hard time 
digesting that some people in this WG flatly refuse the role of 
simulations, and
b) there are many people who claim that Ogier draft is a potpourri of 
disparate modules and/or is too complex with hundreds of unwarranted 
options; which is untrue. I find it extremely shocking that someone 
can make a sweeping generalized statement like this on a technical 
forum without offering any evidence, or solid scientific reasoning 
and inferences. If nothing else, at least MDR draft should have an 
equal footing and equal consideration with other drafts should they 
decide to go experimental.

Sincerely,

Aniket

---

From: Richard Ogier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:15:14 -0700

>ready for multiple implementations.
You claim that the MDR draft is in "continual churn"?
Actually, it hasn't changed much since version 04 in July 2005.
(The smart peering draft was introduced in July 2005 but had a circular
dependency problem that was corrected in later versions.)
But I guess you are talking about the recent discussions regarding the
possibility of allowing retransmitted LSAs to be multicast.
That has not been added to the draft, and might never be added to
the draft, but I think such discussions of possible improvements
are helpful and productive for an experimental draft.  I would be
more concerned if such suggestions for improvement were ignored.

Richard