Re: [babel] [Babel-users] About Babel-RTT
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Tue, 28 July 2020 17:55 UTC
Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83B43A0A9F for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m8Akx9EuNjld for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C37CA3A0A98 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 06SHtc1U017025; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:55:38 +0200
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5836B2314; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id RXnTvJnFhkJC; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:54:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81007B22F2; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:54:30 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:54:30 +0200
Message-ID: <87wo2nwmnd.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, babel-users <babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org>, "Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+5--OyV8GtEUwOpAzEFBU32-+CY7aGtBzVdDqzn63APDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <877dunip1y.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAPDSy+5--OyV8GtEUwOpAzEFBU32-+CY7aGtBzVdDqzn63APDg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5F20669A.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5F20669A.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5F20669A.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/LroTVdyt4gZVWWwMPvL3QJTED-8>
Subject: Re: [babel] [Babel-users] About Babel-RTT
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:55:44 -0000
> I'll note that while a theoretical explanation/study sounds interesting, > it's not required for publication of an IETF document. In my opinion, without a theoretical understanding, it is difficult to provide adequate guidance to implementers. We have a deep theoretical understanding of what makes Babel work. This is why we can say with confidence that implementations MUST evaluate the feasibility condition and that the metric MUST be stricly monotonic, but we can safely leave the details of the route selection algorithm to the implementation. Not so with Babel-RTT. We've got an implementation that has been shown to work, but we have no precise ide which parts of the implementation are important and which are coincidental. In this situation, I don't feel confident to write up a protocol description. -- Juliusz
- [babel] About Babel-RTT Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [babel] [Babel-users] About Babel-RTT David Schinazi
- Re: [babel] [Babel-users] About Babel-RTT Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [babel] [Babel-users] About Babel-RTT Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [babel] [Babel-users] About Babel-RTT Donald Eastlake