Re: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents

Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> Wed, 30 November 2016 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68FC4129513; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:39:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thomasclausen.org
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 PPWbTAs83lJQ; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153]) (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 D9E6912973D; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D906D404D8; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:39:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thomasclausen.org; s=1.tigertech; t=1480509570; bh=Tg/k3573VZck7i0TbEdwUoT3af/1YHk7p95i7W//n0s=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=pNSmjQwZrs4kTFAuFYovRpjBs7BWeHqcJUXk4KfLLWNr+6GsK2G/A/tVi878woSum utgY6E1ryjbeGTOQ3xf6Q6iy9meqy47vk5XprE3YWk60WcJR8bRrPWq80s9tNyUHPY 9c4C1qB3d0H6a1UlqFFj1X3A3sMl0Bx7FQqHse6k=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailb1.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.147.51] (mtg91-1-82-227-24-173.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.24.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BA42D4039D; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:39:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
Message-Id: <FC4E5CBB-A768-47F9-A0B9-AA0D6061A27A@thomasclausen.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E2CB952C-4AA4-469A-BD6F-C5D65377F499"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:39:23 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CALtoyon79kQev4=cTSeyEfMSccUb-yTxgABy60QZoKYrnA3K2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
References: <CALtoyokY4GE1LHeGjUXmrHT-TF+=t=QcLuzLpcs7pLBm0RDURQ@mail.gmail.com> <D461B820.37CD%David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu> <CALtoyon79kQev4=cTSeyEfMSccUb-yTxgABy60QZoKYrnA3K2g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/7U-tgVWLwL-tkSb0CqC1AqFwf60>
Cc: manet-ads@ietf.org, MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:39:33 -0000

I do not believe that, at this time, this WG should adopt any new I-Ds, and certainly not 5 (or 4) new documents in one go.

Explanation:

Existing WG documents, which have cleared WGLC 4-5 months ago, are still pending WG chair write-up - this despite frequent reminders:

	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath/history/

Given the highly limited bandwidth that we observe from the WG chairs, it would simply be foolhardily to push more documents into the WG.

I’d suggest “flushing the buffers” before committing the WG (and, thereby the chairs) to any additional work — which WG adoption of these documents effectively would be.

This should not, of course, preclude the authors of these documents from developing them as individual I-Ds until such time that the buffers are empty, and the chair-bandwidth-problem has been addressed.

It’s effectively a congestion control problem — which, I believe, a certain IETF developed protocol addresses by promptly reducing the window size to one, then and wait for an acknowledgement of data successfully getting through before doubling the window size. With the document cited above being the one “timing out”, I believe that this acknowledgement would be “it has been published as an RFC” ...

So count me down as “don’t adopt these documents at this point in time”, to let time for the congestion issues to be sorted out..

Best,

Thomas

PS: on a different note, I am not perfectly sure that “silence == consensus” is entirely kosher process … 

> On 28 Nov 2016, at 16:44, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> David, 
> 
> Oops. I claim Monday morning fogginess after the long holiday weekend, and being insufficiently caffeinated, as my excuse! ;-) 
> 
> WG, 
> My apologies for the duplication. There are but 4 extensions, but the question to the WG is the same: To adopt, or not to adopt? 
> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu <mailto:David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>> wrote:
> Hi Stan,
> 
> I think #1 and #4 are the same thing, aren't they?
> 
> David
> 
> From: manet <manet-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com <mailto:ratliffstan@gmail.com>>
> Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:26 AM
> To: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org <mailto:manet@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents
> 
> Hello working group participants,
> 
> One of the items identified during the WG meeting in Seoul was to formally request, via the list, Working Group adoption of 5 extension drafts related to DLEP. This email is that formal request. 
> 
> The drafts are: 
> 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-extension-00.html <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-extension-00.html>
> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-pause-extension-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-pause-extension-00>
> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-00>
> 4. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-extension-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-extension-00>
> 5. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-00>
> 
> I have put all 5 extensions on this email for expediency only; please do not assume that they must be adopted as a group. The chairs would greatly appreciate thoughts from the WG, both positive and negative, by December 12. 
> 
> For purposes of determining WG consensus, a lack of a response will be seen as indicating support for adopting the draft (e.g. silence == acceptance). 
> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet