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

Hi JP,

Yes that was my first discussion approach (the best technical features
to be adopted in the WG protocol), but seen some inputs that our
reactive protocol to be compatible to another, and I thought why the
other don't be compatible to this which I needed an answer. I agree
that we will waste time if we choose to make our work compatible to
other reactive protocol or as you mention it will be non sense. In
addition, it needs to use RFC5444 (was discussed) and also to be
compatible to NHDP,

AB

On 2/20/13, 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<mailto: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<mailto:manet@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>