Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Tue, 24 February 2009 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9992428C12C for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:44:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AP-6zyHah5WY for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D98B28C128 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:43:59 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=euVtqNQXXQOqpGACVyIUeBiN0Umk67exUWUhDhVObwJTPwqtBS0M+FGQ3vGyc44U; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.51.129.145] (helo=[10.166.254.33]) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1Lc1KJ-0007OY-75; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:44:17 -0500
Message-ID: <49A431E9.3010401@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:44:09 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
References: <be8c8d780902230203k5f0ffb38m97d817aff9d95554@mail.gmail.com> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01489D135@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com> <49A2E90E.10808@earthlink.net> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01489D24B@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01489D24B@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52f810242912a66957a397f22498e59e47350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.51.129.145
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>, Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:44:00 -0000

Hello Paul,

Paul Lambert wrote:

>> I am almost certain they
>> should be considered out of scope for the document
>> under discussion.
>>     
>
> In looking at the reference in the charter for "ad hoc" (RFC 2501) the defined MANET is a Chimera - a mythical beast made of the parts of many other animals. It is a shame that smaller monsters are out of scope (like 802.11 ad hoc) ...
>   

I am thoroughly mystified by your reply.  Just because certain
topics are out of scope for the small document by Emmanuel
and me, does not mean they are out of scope for [autoconf].
Isn't it possible to have more than one document?  Shouldn't we
collect requirements in a requirements document instead of every
other document that might be written?

To be explicit, I am wholly in favor of making sure that
the results of [autoconf] are applicable to 802.11 ad hoc.
Did I say anything to imply otherwise?

Regards,
Charlie P.

> Paul
>
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charles.perkins@earthlink.net]
>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:21 AM
>> To: Paul Lambert
>> Cc: Emmanuel Baccelli; autoconf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless
>> communication
>>
>>
>> Hello Paul,
>>
>> The document isn't intended to suggest a list of work
>> items for consideration by [autoconf].  Instead, it is just
>> a description of common properties of radio and other
>> wireless links.  These properties are not quite universal,
>> but they are widespread.  Some of them can be alleviated
>> a bit by mechanisms below the network protocol level.
>>
>> So we are not suggesting requirements or work items.
>> Instead, we simply wanted to make as clear as possible
>> some of the characteristics of the transmission media
>> whose widespread availability is motivating the work
>> of [autoconf].
>>
>> Your list of issues would, I think, all fit best in a
>> requirements document.  I am almost certain they
>> should be considered out of scope for the document
>> under discussion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
>>
>> Paul Lambert wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-01 provides an
>>>       
>> interesting list of issues that might be addressed by this working group.
>>     
>>> >From a quick review it does not appear to address:
>>>  - ad hoc network coalescing.  Coalescing has clear implications for
>>>    IP address assignment
>>>  - there is no mention of multicast versus unicast issues.  Perhaps
>>>    since the document makes all links potentially asymmetric and
>>>    unreliable there is no distinction.  At least for 802.11 ad hoc
>>>    I find significant implications.
>>>  - it does not address link security establishment
>>>    The process of setting up the link security is out of scope, but as
>>>    I've mentioned in earlier emails this has a clear impact on available
>>>    networking mechanisms.
>>>    It is also a very important architectural consideration to ensure
>>>       
>> that
>>     
>>>    IP address assignment has some level of security.
>>>
>>> Asymmetric links in all "ad hoc" networks.  Is it possible to partition
>>>       
>> our problem statements so that this is just one of several optional
>> attributes that must be addressed?
>>     
>>> Most modern wireless MAC layers have reliable unicast.  I can see some
>>>       
>> broadcast only links - like satellite broadcast, but outside military
>> applications I am not familiar with broadly deployed commercial wireless
>> networking technologies that are based on asymmetric unicast transmissions.
>> Perhaps someone on this list could point me to the technologies that they
>> are considering for this requirement.
>>     
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>
>