Re: [manet] Why the WG Reactive Protocol to be Compatible with another?

Hi Charlie,

I may undersatnd from Henning input that it is important to read the
core function in a light specification and/or if we get many optional
feature within a specification, it is recommended to have other
documents, as I understand you done for iRREP-draft,

AB

On 2/20/13, Charles E. Perkins <charliep@computer.org> wrote:
> Hello Henning,
>
> I don't think it makes sense to spread optional features into new
> documents just because they're optional.  If there is any ambiguity
> about which are the "core features", then that is a defect of the
> specification, not a result of co-location in a document together.
>
> Otherwise, even a simple flag might need a new document.
>
> Anyway, if you find that some parts of the AODVv2 document do
> not clearly delineate core versus optional features, please let us
> know so we can fix it to be more accurate.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
> On 2/20/2013 7:53 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
>> One great idea of LOADng was to have a compact core document which
>> describes the the basic protocol (fully functional on its own) and put
>> additional features into companion documents.
>>
>> This would also give people a way to describe which "optional"
>> features a software implementation supports.
>>
>> "We implemented the core plus the RFC xyz and abc."
>>
>> Documents with lots of "optional features" in the core quickly become
>> non-interoperable with each other because different people implement
>> different subsets of the options and all are just "standard
>> compliant".
>>
>> Henning Rogge
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:26 PM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
>> <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Hi AB,
>>>
>>> This is critical topic and I cannot agree more with you; the objective is
>>> in
>>> my opinion to come up with the best protocol for the IETF.
>>> Let's be clear: the objective of the IETF is to produce qualitative
>>> protocols for the best of the IETF community and industry, not to make
>>> X or Y happy. Every single good ideas borrowed from Load should in my
>>> opinion be adopted by AODVv2, if there is a consensus. On the
>>> other hand, trying to design AODVv2 with the constraint of making it
>>> compatible with another protocol is a COMPLETE non sense.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> JP.
>>>
>>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> I am not sure why we will make effort of AODVv2 compatible with
>>> LOADng, I am trying to find a good reason mentioned in the WG. I seen
>>> the intention by some participants, but not sure was it intention to
>>> merge DYMO+LOADng without compatibility (with either DYMO or LOADng)
>>> or with percentage of compatibility. Do you think it is good way to
>>> make the reactive protocol and then try to make it compatible?  Please
>>> advise,
>>>
>>> I will have to agree with the below proposal, that if the WG is
>>> agreeing to make compatible with LOADng, then why not go for 100%
>>> compatibility, just change the name title.
>>>
>>> AB
>>>
>>> Sub:Re: [manet] Reactive protocol decision process, for the record
>>> thoughts
>>> On 2/16/13, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:
>>>
>>> Justin,
>>>
>>>
>>> I very much agree with you, Justin. One point I would like to add is
>>>
>>> that the WG will now spend a lot of time making the new AODVv2
>>>
>>> compatible with LOADng (which is claimed in the current DYMO draft);
>>>
>>> that is, in my opinion, a wasted effort since the LOADng draft is per
>>>
>>> definition 100% compatible with LOADng (had that been the starting
>>>
>>> point).
>>>
>>> Ignoring a document that has multiple interoperable implementations,
>>>
>>> deployments, MIB document, as well a support from at least a dozen
>>>
>>> MANET participants (not only LOADng authors) without giving rational
>>>
>>> was a disappointment for me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Ulrich
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>>> manet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>>> manet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>