Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

Benoit/Sue:

Any comments?

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 6/15/15, 4:02 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 5/28/15, 9:26 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>[Because the authors didn¹t have time to review the ops-dir comments
>before the telechat, or before they became a DISCUSS, I¹m explicitly
>cc¹ing it here as well as Sue.]
>
>Benoit:
>
>Hi!
>
>Sorry it took me a while to get to this..
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>DISCUSS:
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>The multiple points, brought up by Sue part of her OPS-DIR review,
>>deserve a DISCUSS. Let's engage in the discussion.
>. . .
>
>
>>Summary of Comments:
>>
>>My comments have 6 major issues, and a set of editorial changes.  Five of
>>my major points have to do with adding more details to the draft to judge
>>the experiment valuable.  One way to resolve these comments is to create
>>document providing details on the test that will be run.  A second way to
>>resolve these comments on experiment is to provide additional high-level
>>guidance in this document.
>
>Note that section 1.1 (Motivation and Experimentation) already provides
>high-level guidance of the type of information to be evaluated.
>
>   While general experiences with this protocol extension, including
>   interoperability of implementations, are encouraged, specific
>   information would be particularly appreciated on the following areas:
>
>   o  Operation in a network that contains both routers implementing
>      this extension, and routers implementing only [RFC7181], in
>      particular are there any unexpected interactions that can break
>      the network?
>
>   o  Operation in realistic deployments, and details thereof, including
>      in particular indicating how many concurrent topologies were
>      required.
>
>   A broader issue that applies to unextended [RFC7181] as well as this
>   extension (and potentially to other MANET routing protocols) is which
>   link metric types are useful in a MANET, and how to establish the
>   metrics to associate with a given link.  While this issue is not only
>   related to this extension, the ability for an OLSRv2 network to
>   maintain different concurrent link metrics may facilitate both
>   experiments with different link metric types, ways to measure them,
>   etc. and may also allow experimentation with link metric types that
>   are not compromises to handle multiple traffic types.
>
>
>Clearly the focus is on ³running code²: operation in real deployments and
>mixed environments.
>
>
>The suggestions for tests made in the Ops-Dir review are great!  However,
>I don¹t believe that such detail belongs in this document, where the main
>purpose is to document the extension.  In fact, I think the suggestions
>belong more as part of a test plan (used by implementors ‹ similar maybe
>to the work done in bmwg, for example), which seems to be in line with the
>comments: (Sue wrote) ³The recommended tests in major concern 1-4 could be
>created in a separate draft.²
>
>It is not in the manet WGs charter to produce test plans.  In order to not
>loose Sue¹s valuable input, I suggest we keep them in the WG¹s wiki ‹
>which will allow for other test cases to be added, details included,
>results reflected, etc.
>
>
>. . .
>>Major concern 5:  Experiments should drive to create operational
>>guidelines for deployment, configuration knobs, and use cases (ADOV-2,
>>OLSR-v2, MT-OLSR-v2)
>
>Completely agree!  Implementation and operational experience (not just
>experiments) should in fact result in that type of guidelines.
>
>Again, the details are not within the scope of this document..and guidance
>is already given in 1.1 about the use in real networks.
>
>Note that this comment mentions not just the extensions proposed, but the
>base protocol and even AODVv2.  All these guidelines are important from an
>operations point of view, but shouldn¹t be tied to this document.
>
>Aside: the MANET WG is in process of rechartering.  This type of
>suggestions should be presented for discussion.
>
>
>. . .
>>Major 6: The IANA section does not answer all the IANA questions.
>>
>>It has most of the information, but I think it is not up to the latest
>>IANA format and information.   Barry Leiba and others have noted that the
>>RFC 7181 and RFC7188 do not match this IANA section.  Rather than repeat
>>these comments, I will simple state the data needs to be consistent and
>>the format match IANA¹s comments.
>
>Barry¹s comment has been solved and will be reflected in an update.
>
>The authors have been talking to IANA directly.  We are now waiting for
>review from the MANET registry experts (which is the one open item with
>IANA).
>
>Thanks!
>
>Alvaro.
>