Re: [manet] Reactive Protocol Situation

[Axel Colin de Verdière <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

First, thank you Joe and Stan for your summary of the situation. I think it's good to discuss that here.

I am in full agreement with what Ulrich stated. In particular, I would like to stress the fact that LOADng is already backed by multiple industrials, making it even more likely that it will go to RFC as efficiently as possible, and the editing process behind the draft has proven to be effective.

Le 30 oct. 2012 à 16:51, "Timothy J. Salo" <[e-mail]> a écrit :

>> As you are all probably aware, there has been WG activity lately on
>> competing drafts for a MANET reactive protocol - DYMO (reviving the
>> current working group document that was parked due to inactivity), and
>> LOADng.
> 
> I suggest not excluding what might be considered a fourth possible
> course of action, namely: wait.
> 
> Based on what I have read and seen during meetings, I am concerned that
> a decision to select one document over the other may be driven by
> personalities, rather than technical content, the ability of the
> authors to work with the members of the working group, or a
> commitment by the authors to complete the process.
> 
> Sometimes, simply deferring a decision permits things to sort
> themselves out naturally, and avoids unnecessarily expending a lot of
> time, energy, and perhaps even ill will by forcing a decision
> prematurely.
> 
> I can't say that deferring a decision will necessarily make the best
> future path obvious.  But, it seems that the cost of not deciding at
> this time is probably small (perhaps beyond the cost of additional
> heated, even acrimonious, emails, posturing and positioning).

Allow me to disagree here. I think this situation has lingered for too long (4+ months), which show that things will probably not sort themselves out naturally. Not choosing now would, on the opposite, be a huge waste of time for the authors and the WG in general: having two competing documents stay much longer would divide the efforts, delaying the publication of an RFC for even more time. Hence it is a good thing that the chairs are trying to make a decision here.

> 
> Having said that, let me argue the contrary.  Sometimes, the best
> course of action is decision-by-fiat (e.g., the working group chairs
> direct a solution).  It is possible that either document and document
> authors would serve the working group equally well.  In this case, a
> quick, mandated solution may permit the working group to focus its
> energy on progressing the selected document.  This approach probably has
> a couple of requirements.  First, the authors of the selected document
> _must_ ensure that their document progresses to an RFC in a expeditious
> manner.  Second, the selection process (e.g., working group chair
> directive) must appear fair to all involved.  If all things really are
> equal, there is a lot to be said for a coin toss.
> 
> -tjs

I believe that the author group behind LOADng has shown in the past that they are willing to spend the time and engergy necessary to ensure the document's progress towards RFC status goes as fast as possible. The multiple implementations, interoperability report and MIB document make a strong case for the draft. After all, from what I've gathered the IETF only believes in "rough consensus and running code", and I think we have just that.

Best,

Axel

> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet