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

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.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone)
chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home)

> On 8 Aug 2014, at 19:04, "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> All, 
> 
> I'll also add that Abdussalam states in that email (in part): 
> 
> "I vote don't adopt until seeing a presented results of optimisation performance in terms of net data rate and delay with MANET size scenarios and with determined thresholds (experiments or simulations)."
> 
> That being the only opinion expressed in the negative, I determined that Abdussalam was "in the rough". Thus, we proceeded. I'll also say that in general, I'm adamantly opposed to *requiring* simulation runs/output for anything occurring in the MANET WG. 
> 
> Regards,
> Stan 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 8, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> Chris,
>>  
>> I believe Abdussalam is referring to an email he sent on 3rd July this year (although it would have been helpful had he made this clear).
>>  
>> In http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg16408.html he raised some questions during the poll for document adoption. A quick, non-scientific, and unthorough  scan of the archives does not show an answer.
>>  
>> I can't say that I can parse the referenced email with ease, but I think I see a request to substantiate the assertion implicit in the draft that there is some optimization benefit to the work. You might reasonably respond to that "allowing immediate reinstatement of the symmetric 2-hop neighbor if the link quality later improves sufficiently obviously makes the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood more robust, and so the updates to the two RFCs clearly represents an optimization."
>>  
>> I must say that I find it hard to correlate that old email with the new comment that "there was an object the optimization draft to be a standard track with an open questioning/discussion." I do not see any objection in the archive to the publication of the draft on the Standards Track. All I see is a "vote" to not adopt the I-D.
>>  
>> Abdussalam: You go on to say "I don't see reason/interest for my review for the new update versions."  That's OK. There is no requirement for you to review this document nor to send any email commenting on whether or not you have reviewed it.
>>  
>> Adrian
>>  
>>  
>> From: Christopher Dearlove [mailto:christopher.dearlove@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: 07 August 2014 22:49
>> To: Abdussalam Baryun
>> Cc: Stan Ratliff (sratliff); <manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; manet-ads; manet IETF; Thomas Clausen
>> Subject: Re: [manet] Working group last call for draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis and draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization
>>  
>> WGLC is when discussion is held (and before it of course). I do not recall any objection, nor open question.
>>  
>>  
>> On 7 Aug 2014, at 22:36, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> My comment: there was an object the optimization draft to be a standard track with an open questioning/discussion, however, no sign for reply from editors, so I don't see reason/interest for my review for the new update versions. 
>>  
>> AB
>> 
>> On Thursday, August 7, 2014, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
>> Working group participants,
>> 
>> This is a working group last call on the two documents mentioned above. Please submit any issues or concerns via the list on or before August 21, 2014.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Stan
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 