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

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.