Re: [manet] Working group last call for draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis and draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

I didn't understand all of that.

But just understand what the extension does. It retains unused certain information that was thrown away. It makes it available immediately it becomes "good" again without waiting for it to be reconfirmed by signalling. It was even an arbitrary decision by the router that caused it to be thrown away. Finally it's an entirely optional decision to use it.

Given all that, the objection is essentially one that says it might be harmful not to have to wait for valid information that you used to have, and that is optional to use. That makes no sense at all.

(The update of the MIB is just a consequence, it's nothing fundamental.)

--  
Christopher Dearlove
[e-mail] (iPhone)
[e-mail] (home)

> On 9 Aug 2014, at 12:25, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Friday, August 8, 2014, Christopher Dearlove wrote:
>> Adrian
>> 
>> Thanks for the effort in unearthing this. I take the same view as Stan. I will note that I have implemented this, but don't have any publishable performance results. But as I said, I agree with Stan on the lack of necessity of this.
> 
>  The draft is updating two standards, and promoting better performance. I remember when the first present of the draft at IETF 89, I asked you of its difference, and the answer was no much code difference just performance.
> 
>  When we promote optimum that means best performance? So how can this WG get sure of that optimum behavior, do we just follow the author/implementor, is that IETF practice.  The results can be necessary to prove it's a suitable standard update. If you want it to be not necessary to give results then no need to update our standards, just a new standard extension. 
> 
> AB
>