Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 03 July 2015 08:49 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 108F31ACD1E; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 01:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 ktx5u19abMwA; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 01:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7893B1ACD1C; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 01:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=41547; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1435913365; x=1437122965; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=hRzpK8Z1RnOZHbv23i1NRZ1BuQkow4KKY6qPA128kgM=; b=eeG7wWDJdX1u2ZZVa996s0yfRbY8UbrvpUUbcjV7h9HssYTrEJx6ighI emeTf05Prng4GqkseAaZ0/skpMNTNp2ob7UE9+lNObSLtt/EoPShKwUjk n0V594WERXRAtyR+Lh4sRdn4L5HyipwKrp4iZz44XzWZlm3D2rpYLGLgT 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,399,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="546905210"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2015 08:49:22 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t638nJqJ031098; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 08:49:19 GMT
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'" <aretana@cisco.com>
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>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <55964C8E.40706@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:49:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D40F26072@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000703000502000605020900"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/PKBkKOOXLCq7BPhzSNsFcRb-kVA>
Cc: "draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, "manet-chairs@ietf.org" <manet-chairs@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:49:30 -0000
On 03/07/2015 10:43, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > > 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.) > Ok, please do push a new version. I believe Alvaro is out of the office for some time. Regards, Benoit > > Christopher > > *-- * > > *Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer > BAE Systems Applied Intelligence > **__________________________________________________________________________ > * > *T*: +44 (0)1245 242194 | *E: *chris.dearlove@baesystems.com > <mailto:chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> > > 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:*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 > <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>.// > > 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 > <mailto:draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology@ietf.org>; > manet@ietf.org <mailto:manet@ietf.org>; manet-chairs@ietf.org > <mailto:manet-chairs@ietf.org>; The IESG; ops-dir@ietf.org > <mailto: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 > <mailto:aretana@cisco.com>> wrote: > > >On 5/28/15, 9:26 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com > <mailto: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] 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)