Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Mon, 06 July 2015 16:19 UTC
Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DB51B2F99 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRD8uDiRBPWE for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-x233.google.com (mail-vn0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E64321B2F9B for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnbf62 with SMTP id f62so8099984vnb.8 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ENjff6PSEaM/sU92mkrRI112Cp/SgTBg/FnnvcAOO54=; b=jY3FOz7bj5yWLVVhjAlXUbRi2uutVnGUe9+hCRnuPHCnLG+O7WaSq5hDp/qGvEC+eV 3WcmMBThQlq41qkwOkVIMo+7nSQTqNmQ8AgUgsJlOl/8mooO3oJzMOUZk0jM/YnxJQm7 QEJ3gCsIsnudLGW5RWWD1dcGXT6to3+aLJbe0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ENjff6PSEaM/sU92mkrRI112Cp/SgTBg/FnnvcAOO54=; b=JFMoTCoQj1IG2fNyTgEQAMAQSbkbUO7e2pgpMs5uDAVhl6N3AQZN6iMEkavx+JosbA 3b/NKfTohNLlIHRLBEpd429qEu/ZOP6wHlH/N7RPSHATYWivS9uqRdwcongISICnLlZ1 UocaEAG1MBDWDtTZV0K0Z7sA508xfuXq2giSIegO8sYJutDfB1REO+zxUL14MCcDuflK kEwyOIa4U4iGr2I1M7tWfq9ZJsrXfiKgNLSfZyMBLgpzF107tjZRGN26Rg8q+jkH64jb MQy2u+8+zNTiH2u+QwUZoq/qtM56/deXVM71nU/dDOHGu+sSBbc8FNT6J4djPOHg8c9L Ao4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUkxN4JKtcPSOWIg+IE+545mDIIdUDC56cO3zK67DXk8tEoMy2Ysh5PG7XHlcgDuw1wHqT
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.104.7 with SMTP id ga7mr51205333vdb.16.1436199536097; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.97.130 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D40F27FC2@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
References: <20150528132630.13861.80616.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D1A49C12.B8002%aretana@cisco.com> <D1B19832.B9CC6%aretana@cisco.com> <011401d0af6b$72770ab0$57652010$@ndzh.com> <559624FD.6050407@cisco.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D40F26072@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <026e01d0b5d6$243b28b0$6cb17a10$@ndzh.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D40F27FC2@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:18:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC873u=5wxOUH+Bwj=ZB-EdBzK-qWQqph2Ecmj0-hed5EA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/OSTVSSluTpxo1-O3NiCDxgx8bfU>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "manet-chairs@ietf.org" <manet-chairs@ietf.org>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:19:17 -0000
+1 Regards Ulrich On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> 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: +44 (0)1245 242194 | E: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com > > 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:shares@ndzh.com] > Sent: 03 July 2015 22:21 > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); 'Benoit Claise'; 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)' > Cc: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org; manet@ietf.org; > manet-chairs@ietf.org; 'The IESG'; ops-dir@ietf.org > 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:chris.dearlove@baesystems.com] > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 4:43 AM > To: Benoit Claise; Susan Hares; 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)' > Cc: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org; manet@ietf.org; > manet-chairs@ietf.org; 'The IESG'; ops-dir@ietf.org > 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: +44 (0)1245 242194 | E: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com > > 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:bclaise@cisco.com] > Sent: 03 July 2015 07:00 > To: Susan Hares; 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)' > Cc: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org; manet@ietf.org; > manet-chairs@ietf.org; 'The IESG'; ops-dir@ietf.org > 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:aretana@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:39 AM > To: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Susan Hares > Cc: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org; manet@ietf.org; > manet-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; ops-dir@ietf.org > 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)" <aretana@cisco.com> wrote: > > > >>On 5/28/15, 9:26 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com> 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 > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >
- [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-man… Benoit Claise
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Susan Hares
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [manet] [OPS-DIR] Benoit Claise's Discuss on … MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Susan Hares
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Susan Hares
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)