Re: [manet] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-13: (with COMMENT)

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Yes it is a good idea to add the list address, but need IESG/wg-chairs work
harder to maintain acknowledgements/replies to any participants that send
to the list/draft.

AB

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Great. Thanks all...
>
> W
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Justin Dean <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I think having people directed to the list regarding questions of
> > implimentations is completely appropriate.
> >
> > Justin Dean
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017, 11:45 AM Jiazi Yi <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Although with existing experience, multiple paths can be obtained even
> >> with such partial information,  the calculation might be impacted,
> >> depending on the MPR selection algorithm used." - I don't understand the
> >> "with existing experience", and this sentence is a fragment. I suspect
> >> that removing " with existing experience," would make this cleaner, but
> I
> >> don't really understand what you are trying to say…
> >>
> >>
> >> Does this sound better:
> >>
> >> Although multiple paths can be obtained even with such partial
> information
> >> based on existing experience, the calculation might be impacted
> depending
> >> on
> >> the Multi-Point Relay (MPR) selection algorithm used.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think, "Experience has shown that multiple paths can be obtained
> >> even with such partial information, however, depending on the
> >> Multi-Point Relay (MPR) selection algorithm used, the calculation
> >> might be impacted”.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> I'm not quite sure what you mean by: "calculation
> >> might be impacted" - perhaps "suboptimal results may be obtained"? Or
> >> something.
> >>
> >>
> >> It’s the disjointness of the paths calculated. We will clarify it in the
> >> text also.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> 5.1:
> >> "CUTOFF_RATIO   The ratio that defines the maximum metric of a path
> >> compared to the shortest path kept in the OLSRv2 Routing Set. For
> >> example, the metric to a destination is R_metric based on the
> >> Routing Set." - I don't understand what the last sentence is trying to
> >> say.
> >>
> >> "CUTOFF_RATIO MUST be greater than or
> >>     equal to 1.  Note that setting the value to 1 means looking for
> >>     equal length paths, which may not be possible in some networks."
> >> -- surely setting it to 2 (or any other number) will also end up
> >> looking for paths which might not be possible?
> >> E.g:
> >>       ┌──┐  ┌──┐  ┌──┐  ┌──┐
> >> ┌────▶│R1│─▶│R2│─▶│R3├─▶│R4│─────┐
> >> │     └──┘  └──┘  └──┘  └──┘     ▼
> >> ┌───┐            ┌──┐            ┌───┐
> >> │ S │───────────▶│R6│───────────▶│ D │
> >> └───┘            └──┘            └───┘
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. This is intentional: to avoid having too much variance between
> >> multiple
> >> paths obtained.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yup, but if set to 2, you might also not be able to find a path that
> >> works, so I think you need to remove: "Note that setting the value to
> >> 1 means looking for equal length paths, which may not be possible in
> >> some networks." -- or perhaps, "Setting the number low makes it less
> >> likely that additional paths will be found -- for example, setting it
> >> to 1 will only consider equal length paths" ? (I don't feel strongly
> >> about any of this)
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah, this would be better. thanks.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 9.  Configuration Parameters
> >> "the users of this protocol
> >>  are also encouraged to explore different parameter setting in various
> >> network environments, and provide feedback."  -- where?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmmm… I didn’t quite get the question. You meant where to provide the
> >> feedback? There is contact information of the authors in the draft, and
> >> apparently, the mailing list is the right place also. If you want, we
> can
> >> call it out explicitly in the draft.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yup, that would be great -- perhaps "and provide feedback to the MANET
> >> WG <insert list name>"
> >> ID Guidlines contains:
> >>
> >> "It is strongly recommended that the draft include a notice (with
> >>   email address) of where comments should be sent.  For example:
> >>
> >>      "Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the working
> >>      group's mailing list at ___@______ and/or the author(s)."
> >> "
> >> -- perhaps just copy that.  Actually, chairs, do you want this (don't
> >> want to clutter up your list).
> >>
> >>
> >> I’m fine with the proposed text, unless the chairs are explicitly
> against
> >> it ;)
> >>
> >> Again, thanks very much for the review and the comments!
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >> Jiazi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 12.  "IANA Considerations
> >>  This section adds one new Message TLV, allocated as a new Type
> >>  Extension to an existing Message TLV."
> >> -- this section seems to be missing some important information, like
> >> which registry this updates Message Type 7 in.
> >>
> >>
> >> The registry is "Message TLV Types” specified in
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7631
> >> We will add related information in the new revision.
> >>
> >>
> >> Win!
> >>
> >>
> >> best
> >>
> >> Jiazi
> >>
> >>
> >> Awesome, thank you for addressing all these...
> >>
> >> W
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nits:
> >> S1.1:
> >>
> >> "Because the packet drop is normally bursty in a path" -- "Because
> packet
> >> drops on a path are normally bursty"...
> >>
> >> "Other than general experiences including the protocol specification and
> >> interoperability with base OLSRv2 implementations, the experiences in
> the
> >> following aspects are highly appreciated:"
> >> s/ experiences including/ experiences, including / (grammar)
> >> s/ the experiences / experiences / (grammar)
> >>
> >> "Although with existing experience,  multiple paths can be obtained even
> >> with such partial information,  the calculation might be impacted,
> >> depending on the MPR selection algorithm used."
> >> s/Although with existing experience/Although, with existing experience/
> >> (grammar)
> >>
> >> "In scenarios where the length of the source routing header is critical,
> >> the loose source routing can be considered."
> >> s/ the loose source /  loose source /
> >>
> >> "for  example, the paths with lower metrics (i.e., higher quality) can
> >> transfer more datagrams compared to paths with higher metrics." -- nit:
> >> many people (perhaps incorrectly) associate 'datagram' with 'UDP' - you
> >> might want to clarify (or just say packet)
> >>
> >> S3:
> >> "MP-OLSRv2 is designed for networks with dynamic topology by avoiding
> >> single route failure." - this makes it sound like it was *designed* by
> >> avoiding single route failure.
> >>
> >> "in IPv4 networks the interoperability is achieved by using loose source
> >> routing header;" - in IPv4 networks interoperability is achieved using
> >> loose source routing headers;" (or "by using the loose...")
> >>
> >> S4:
> >> "The reactive operation is local in the router" - "local to the router"
> >>
> >>
> >> S5.1:
> >> "All the intermediate routers MUST be included in the source routing
> >> header, which makes the number of hops to be kept a variable."
> >> -- I don't understand how the "the number of hops to be kept" is "a
> >> variable"; this makes it sound like I can set the number of hops to be
> >> kept. Perhaps you meant "a variable number of hops" or "the number of
> >> hops changes"?
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> manet mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> >> idea in the first place.
> >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> >> of pants.
> >>   ---maf
>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>