IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] draft-ietf-olsrv2-multipath-09

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Fri, 24 June 2016 11:40 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAEC12D0E2 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 vH_Vwa7M62oN for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A843812B04D for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6384; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1466768428; x=1467978028; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2NRIWwjKkIrERBSuFEFa17PlqytVE7sgqKGrhWv7U3o=; b=U8JASFzc1gZeyrYX1zCA7SVwF6+GmPpJt9Z1xQL152tY1F5JaMVafoWG QC7aynwriZ+XPaPHlkR/WjlkYAbAVxCiRkPfzrdpO+MpvfJs05W5Wd0Ib zJajgeBd9xfYitPHNhxNWpVEisXefv7hsHW088G9+KnnDzNhhuzrkyae4 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BiAgDzGm1X/49dJa1dgnBOgVMGrhmHBoUBgXuGGAKBNjgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhE0BAQR5EAIBCD8HIREUEQIEDgWIFgMXwjwNg30BAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEBAR6GKIRNgkOCM4UlBY4yhRqFADQBjDKCAY8jiA+HbgEeNoIIHIFMbogxfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,520,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="289589117"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jun 2016 11:40:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5OBePNs013358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:40:25 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:40:24 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:40:24 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com>
Thread-Topic: [manet] draft-ietf-olsrv2-multipath-09
Thread-Index: AQHRxb4y90juFWZxy0qmGpyLOtNgNp/yxcyAgAAbBYCAAHFbAIAABbgAgAF2ygCAAl/jAIAARf0AgAADiYCAAAGuAIAAeeOA///aeICAAOxJgP//5TyA
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:40:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D3929075.130AE7%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <9CC61969-5F6A-4F14-87C6-99B47080DDB3@gmail.com> <CAN1bDFz9AKg2y=ck_ue3SAwyWPafBLSBBbXQMcS-5OARHjeBVg@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923D1304@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAN1bDFwPMAHKymyA5ASyRQWfMQ5ixer88jSbcOeunJm1nAGAtw@mail.gmail.com> <BBB23144-23BA-4D72-958D-8F1B8C949724@gmail.com> <CAN1bDFxixObUbKo7HErSS-QrrdMFzUfdSBJQrsbW1Yq+h7s2Xw@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923D1A4D@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923D1C19@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <ecaf7affc20c4f9088cbb33ebb7f6f53@VAUSDITCHM2.idirect.net> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923D1C44@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAN1bDFyDamVA+NGj1XPEnF8ms13wCLxMRc7BW1_EOpuN7wL1WA@mail.gmail.com> <D391D9FD.1309C9%aretana@cisco.com> <CAN1bDFzbDvTcNHOX6Fx5f-7wu2pEf9raqDZDTXrLP2WM9y-nYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN1bDFzbDvTcNHOX6Fx5f-7wu2pEf9raqDZDTXrLP2WM9y-nYg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D3929075130AE7aretanaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Phmtike3OIxTiZDtmCr2LUYs_Dw>
Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] draft-ietf-olsrv2-multipath-09
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 24 Jun 2016 11:40:30 -0000

On 6/24/16, 5:16 AM, "yi.jiazi@gmail.com<mailto:yi.jiazi@gmail.com> on behalf of Jiazi YI" <yi.jiazi@gmail.com<mailto:yi.jiazi@gmail.com> on behalf of ietf@jiaziyi.com<mailto:ietf@jiaziyi.com>> wrote:

Hi!

Of course, As a WG, the priority is achieving the milestones, but I don't think it would preclude having extensions to OLSRv2, which is part of the charter also. In fact, IIRC, during the recharter discussion, several extensions for OLSRv2 were proposed. The WG finished with using the term "The MANET WG is responsible for the maintenance of OLSRv2 [RFC 7181],
NHDP [RFC 6130] and the Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format [RFC5444],
and their extensions.", instead of listing possible extensions explicitly.

As I said: "To be clear: I'm not asking you not to do this work, I want the WG Chairs to prioritize appropriately..."  That's it!  If the WG wants to take this work on, I don't have a problem - it is with in the charter.  Let's just not forget about the other work we have...

The second part of the point I tried to make was, I think, more important:  extensions to IPv6 are not within the manet WG's charter, but they belong to 6man.  It would probably be more effective if the source routing work was in the Standards Track.  I'm assuming that Multi-path is just one use case for source routing, but there are probably more.  I also wrote: "[*] I doubt that 6man will want to put in an extension (even if it's already defied in RFC6554) for an Experimental effort.  I of course may be wrong and the Experimental nature may make it easier in their eyes to simply reference RFC6554."

Note that what I'm suggesting is not to put the Multi-path work in the Standards Track (that is a separate discussion) - but to justify source routing for MANET networks as a larger need (including multi-path, but bigger than that).

Thanks!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email