Re: [manet] Progress...

["Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[e-mail]>]

The places where authors need to go to the list, in my opinion, include (a) replies to comments on list, (b) trying to understand things said on list - ask on list, (c) where there’s significant disagreement within the author team - that suggests something the list will have a view on, and (d) significant new features or changes. I may have missed an (e). Obviously not everything goes on list, especially wording nits. (In fact wording nits continue right up to the RFC Editor, well beyond the WG.) But I think, yes, the line hasn’t been in the right place.

As for Router Client, that hasn’t been one of my issues, so I haven’t got a view there right now.

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer
BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Laboratories
__________________________________________________________________________

T:  [phone]  |  E: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
www.baesystems.com/ai<http://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: manet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ratliff, Stanley
Sent: 18 January 2016 14:42
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Justin Dean; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [manet] Progress...


*** 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<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.
If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.
*** WARNING ***
EXTERNAL EMAIL -- This message originates from outside our organization.

Agreed. The AODVv2 list does (IIRC) contain “things we considered but did not change” – specifically coming out of the call, the item that comes to mind is use of the verbiage “Router Client”. The consensus was that (a) we don’t really like “Router Client”, and (b) liked the proposed alternative even less. So our selection process was to “go with the lesser of two evils”… subjective, but there it is.

As to your comment on the author discussion list – fair point. We’re attempting to use that list to get consensus amongst the 5 of us before going on-list. Something of a “making sure you’ve done your homework before presenting to the class”, as it were. We (the authors) very well could be drawing the line in the wrong spot.

Regards,
Stan


From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 9:32 AM
To: Ratliff, Stanley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Justin Dean <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [manet] Progress...

Yes, agreed it’s the security issue that’s the most significant technical issue in DLEP. One that isn’t subject to a simple technical (let alone editorial) solution, because it’s a policy issue. One which the WG and others may have views on. (Personally I haven’t got a definite view what’s best - and which will be IESG-acceptable.)

With regard to both, but especially AODVv2, we need a detailed list, one that contains not just “this is changed” but also “this we considered nut have not changed”. We may of course disagree with the latter - and may use those two to check whether there’s a third list “these we missed”.

You note a long conference call. Justin just advised me there is an AODVv2 author discussion list. Too much on the latter, not enough here. In particular by not tapping in here, the AODVv2 authors have  been failing to engage with some of the WG expertise.

And I know I haven’t reviewed the core specification. Even if/when I do, determining that all the important little details about when sequence numbers are updated, routes are invalidated etc. takes more than reading a specification. So input on implementation would be useful. (In an ideal world, protocol proofing - but we didn’t have that for OLSRv2 either.)

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer
BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Laboratories
__________________________________________________________________________

T:  [phone]  |  E: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
www.baesystems.com/ai<http://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: Ratliff, Stanley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 18 January 2016 14:21
To: Justin Dean; Dearlove, Christopher (UK); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [manet] Progress...


*** 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<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.
If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.
Hello,

As for DLEP, we are indeed considering Christopher’s review comments (and thank you again for taking the time for a good, thorough review). I believe the ball is in my court there – I wanted to go through those comments again, and then group them with Lou Berger’s review so that we can consolidate the review list. The section where I’m most concerned is the Security Considerations. What we’re attempting to do is to clearly state that DLEP only works over a one-hop network segment – whether that network segment is physical or a logical tunnel. DLEP security then relies on a “properly secured” (whatever that means, and that’s pretty much where I’m struggling right now) at network segment at Layer 2. My intent is to put a loooong email to the list when the document is posted, with a point-by-point discussion of the issues raised, and the proposed resolutions in the text.

Now for AODVv2 – there was a 2-hour conference call just last week with the authors/editors. We’re trying to reach consensus on text changes and/or responses to the review comments from both Thomas and Christopher. The plan with AODV is the same as DLEP – produce a point-by-point email with the review comments, and the proposed resolutions.

Regards,
Stan

From: manet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Justin Dean
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 6:42 AM
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [manet] Progress...


I agree with you that the lack of on list progress is problematic. I expected document updates by now if I'm honest. Without document updates, and engagement from the editors publicly here on the list wg progress is indeed stalled...editors we need real progress or the documents will die whatever the background progress achieved.

Justin Dean

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 5:17 AM Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I’ve just been looking back over what’s been said about AODVv2 on list recently. Before I do that, let’s say there’s been lots of discussion on DLEP. There’s been no real followup to my exhaustive (and maybe exhausting) comments, but I do know from off-list contact that the authors have read them and are considering them as part of next review.

AODvv2 there’s really been very little. There has been a bit of discussion of message forwarding. But my comments that RFC 6621 is completely inapplicable (ideas from it - mostly in turn from other sources - yes, but the layering is all wrong to just say “use RFC 6621”) in November have had zero response, on or off list. I commented in early December that I’m waiting to review the next draft, because -12 still has several problems in the material about overview, relationship to other protocols etc. that still haven’t been fixed. I haven’t even attempted to get into the core of how the protocol is working in detail, too many other things have been needing fixing.

I also enquired about implementations, no response. For what’s supposed to be standards track, there have been quite a lot of changes in things such as bidirectionality checking. Whether these have all been implemented is, I think, a significant issue.

There’s also been a bit of discussion of Thomas’s review comments. I don’t know how well addressed they are. The subject line was about comments in -11 not addressed in -12.

But principally, we aren’t seeing any real engagement from the authors. Without that there’s a lack of incentive. And what’s not going to work is just a “here’s -13” with no further explanation. Especially, as one occasionally sees hints that some people are thinking -13 will be ready for WGLC. It would have to be substantially changed from -12 for that to be so, and just as a “here it is” won’t work. Anything even in that ballpark will have required lots of discussion to produce, and none of it has been here. (I don’t expect every detail of wording changes to be on list until close to the finishing line. But basic stuff, yes.)

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer
BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Laboratories
__________________________________________________________________________

T:  [phone]  |  E: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
www.baesystems.com/ai<http://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: manet [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Justin Dean
Sent: 13 January 2016 15:13
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [manet] Progress...


*** 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<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.
If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.
*** WARNING ***
EXTERNAL EMAIL -- This message originates from outside our organization.

I hope everyone has had an enjoyable holiday season.  We have two major outstanding tasks that NEED to get finished DLEP and AODVv2.  I know that their has been progress behind the scenes but that progress needs to be shared with the larger working group as it will be the wg as a whole which has the final say and the more time everyone has to go over documents and provide feedback the faster we will finish.  I'd strongly encourage the editors of those draft documents to share their progress and discussions on list, better yet updated drafts (even if they aren't perfect).
Let's have a fantastic 16.
Justin Dean

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________