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

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Ulrich and Chris: 

Thank you for your comments. You will receive additional email regarding this topic after the IETF deadline. 

Sue 



-----Original Message-----
From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 12:19 PM
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Susan Hares; Benoit Claise; Alvaro Retana (aretana); [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)

+1

Regards
Ulrich

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Sue
>
>
>
> I’m afraid I agree with Alvaro that this level of detail is 
> inappropriate in the draft. I don’t even understand the comment that 
> “the draft belongs in BMWG”. The draft belongs in MANET.
>
>
>
> One of the issues that your approach would raise is that it would 
> become harder to publish an Experimental draft than a Proposed Standard.
>
>
>
> I won’t be in Prague. I had at one point hoped to be, but a 
> combination of circumstances has ruled that out.
>
>
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
> --
>
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
> T:  [phone]  |  E: [e-mail]
>
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great 
> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
> www.baesystems.com/ai
>
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited Registered in England & Wales 
> No: 01337451
>
> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 03 July 2015 22:21
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); 'Benoit Claise'; 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; 'The IESG'; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Benoit Claise's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
>
>
>
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an 
> external partner or the internet.
> Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any 
> attachments or reply.
> For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in 
> emails you receive, click here.
> If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process.
>
> Christopher:
>
>
>
> You are correct.  Alvaro and I have been exchanging email on the 
> DISCUSS point.  I am still waiting for his next email exchange.  My 
> disagreement with Alvaro is that the draft belongs in BMWG.  I think 
> the expertise for it lies in MANET and it should be accepted as a 
> MANET draft with co-review on BMWG.
>
>
>
> On the positive note, would you like help writing up the details of 
> the tests?  Perhaps we can meet at IETF and sketch out the plans.
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) 
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 4:43 AM
> To: Benoit Claise; Susan Hares; 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; 'The IESG'; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Benoit Claise's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
>
>
>
> Benoit
>
>
>
> Please note that Sue’s attribution is incorrect, although addressed to 
> “the Manet author of the comments” these were actually comments from 
> Alvaro, our AD. We will wait for you and he to have this discussion. 
> (We may in the meanwhile publish an -06 that addresses any other 
> outstanding issues.)
>
>
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
> --
>
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
> T:  [phone]  |  E: [e-mail]
>
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great 
> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
> www.baesystems.com/ai
>
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited Registered in England & Wales 
> No: 01337451
>
> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 03 July 2015 07:00
> To: Susan Hares; 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; 'The IESG'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
>
>
>
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an 
> external partner or the internet.
> Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any 
> attachments or reply.
> For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in 
> emails you receive, click here.
> If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process.
>
> Dear all,
>
> To the Manet author of the comments:
>
>
>
> To help with the comments:  I've pulled them up.
>
>
>
>>>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
>
>
>
> Let's go to the higher level purpose rather than the "not my WG charter"
> reasoning.
>
>
>
> If you are running an experiment with this protocol, you need to have 
> specific details enough to determine if this experimental protocol is 
> a success.  Otherwise, you will continue to have the OLSR vs. AODV-v2, 
> or vague review on RFC5444 additions to the protocol.  This ends up in 
> emotional debate without substantial experimental results to back it up.
> Emotional debates recycle. My suggestions aim at providing enough 
> detail to settle these arguments with experimental results.
>
> Exactly.
> As example, see Status of This Document and Document Status in RFC 
> 7499 and
> 7360
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>  MANET has lots of exciting work to do in the advent of 5G, 802.11ac, 
> and other  mobile network changes.
>
>
>
> As you noted, the reviews on operational portion of this work points 
> out how these experimental results are critical to designing an 
> appropriate operational interface.
>
>
>
> So.. bottom line... Staying "not in my charter" and asking to pass 
> this document on without settling on a mechanism to fix it - is a mistake.
> Decide how the MANET WG is going to determine this is a success and 
> put together a plan.  BMWG usually does device compliance.  If you 
> want aid on a network-compliance test case, they will work with  and review the document.
> However, the real expertise is still in MANET.
>
>
>
> ON IANA ... That's covered by Barry's discuss.
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> PS – If you are tired of the document and debate, as a WG chair, I 
> understand.  However, the value of the reviews is a fresh set of eyes 
> and emotions.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:39 AM
> To: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Susan Hares
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; The IESG; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended 
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or 
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>