Re: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 30 November 2016 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.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 EE78F12960F; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:43:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 NqGu3w--3pjJ; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:43:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (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 1858C129A25; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:41:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id x190so223121918qkb.0; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:41:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ll6KsGzR1S6HfE4XHeitgiN05F3wHWv0nyaJ5Tq6AHk=; b=dW+Pm8tsKUrLk9H90gdenS0gEyWu6CaS/sZW+FjvSK1kRr/vV6mvxbv8t7ZeylWnUo zU5BYoWult10sO61JCjyomMA1h89TGrAZ2RV4a6suB3ewCqRTStPPlaNLolAbaNo8nZ3 ZsEKw49ZYT9PY+28oE/VHZeWafxzw3GMN2lBrSrghWBDnR/lJIWw+xrKuCsyLmG0+2Ef vt3A8pjOdVKD/H/UbPXzsdPPChkdrlidWkjsGi98GoNXXmzGFIpHmJmInkowpz8Jjru5 xIx4ra4kO9KL1iF1QnHRrjPTJLsj4XZ/nSID8rO5fSCrXJc/QinkZOKDRSf6t+10PH/E xWgA==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ll6KsGzR1S6HfE4XHeitgiN05F3wHWv0nyaJ5Tq6AHk=; b=kHdhblalOEnybeTQJ9xXuZMN/rCG95bM3A1yXrPMtRaiGoVS9rdbfeOiESBSVeB6yX jHEqghAc5plEfVHNC641Dr9yPPwm/AnTPgBUASqfX/7h6Em0EtPSBnmQBHfJZzBc40ue s+WgCv4s9UJlprZ1f7FqBxA8J0dDTAwUXnWb45ns+0J2OLjB+5Ia0NtLdAnSASAFlnaL FZxwiSeDfY3rRuczuX/MGFsowGue498sZkfYyYV46HjYYJXvFWt03t6HPfJPtgrQ1NTc zRm9IgbFsr2tI/VwYMcIRZC4KkQgyrl7WZNOhYCYPxLGdkw23u6jyiwQC22a+bZp5FwY HOFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC0237Kcnur4NS2ZmnmQOU85EdPKybz0pF6x/fGqzHxNpK3SgVDCQeGWivQxlrTIFzZ2ppDgVvCmb7dI3XQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.112.134 with SMTP id l128mr10949097qkc.220.1480538466158; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:41:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.107.162 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:41:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <FC4E5CBB-A768-47F9-A0B9-AA0D6061A27A@thomasclausen.org>
References: <CALtoyokY4GE1LHeGjUXmrHT-TF+=t=QcLuzLpcs7pLBm0RDURQ@mail.gmail.com> <D461B820.37CD%David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu> <CALtoyon79kQev4=cTSeyEfMSccUb-yTxgABy60QZoKYrnA3K2g@mail.gmail.com> <FC4E5CBB-A768-47F9-A0B9-AA0D6061A27A@thomasclausen.org>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 22:41:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89x6oz2jQP0db7GjxTYEnW9Vbv2KX5VsPzSWitMFj_ahA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114fe04c5a693605428ab96c
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/_if_6NFQeSLKGpjO0hUWFpIdwB4>
Cc: manet-ads@ietf.org, MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents
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: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:43:54 -0000

Hi Thomas and Stan,

It is good to know that some participants agree with the strategy mentioned
before, when some drafts were announced for adoption like multi-topology,
multipath and multicast,  I wanted that we focus to complete the pending
issues like aodv, however, that strategy was not followed by the group
because some people around the world may be interested in such adoption. I
still support that strategy so we get time to discuss and review, but few
authors in this WG may not  agree.

Therefore, I will say that I accept to adopt only one dlep-extension,
which I am interested in the dlep-multi-hop ,

Best Regards

Abdussalam


On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen <
ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote:

> I do not believe that, at this time, this WG should adopt any new I-Ds,
> and certainly not 5 (or 4) new documents in one go.
>
> Explanation:
>
> Existing WG documents, which have cleared WGLC 4-5 months ago, are still
> pending WG chair write-up - this despite frequent reminders:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-
> multipath/history/
>
> Given the highly limited bandwidth that we observe from the WG chairs, it
> would simply be foolhardily to push more documents into the WG.
>
> I’d suggest “flushing the buffers” before committing the WG (and, thereby
> the chairs) to any additional work — which WG adoption of these documents
> effectively would be.
>
> This should not, of course, preclude the authors of these documents from
> developing them as individual I-Ds until such time that the buffers are
> empty, and the chair-bandwidth-problem has been addressed.
>
> It’s effectively a congestion control problem — which, I believe, a
> certain IETF developed protocol addresses by promptly reducing the window
> size to one, then and wait for an acknowledgement of data successfully
> getting through before doubling the window size. With the document cited
> above being the one “timing out”, I believe that this acknowledgement would
> be “it has been published as an RFC” ...
>
> So count me down as “don’t adopt these documents at this point in time”,
> to let time for the congestion issues to be sorted out..
>
> Best,
>
> Thomas
>
> PS: on a different note, I am not perfectly sure that “silence ==
> consensus” is entirely kosher process …
>
> On 28 Nov 2016, at 16:44, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> Oops. I claim Monday morning fogginess after the long holiday weekend, and
> being insufficiently caffeinated, as my excuse! ;-)
>
> WG,
> My apologies for the duplication. There are but 4 extensions, but the
> question to the WG is the same: To adopt, or not to adopt?
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL <
> David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stan,
>>
>> I think #1 and #4 are the same thing, aren't they?
>>
>> David
>>
>> From: manet <manet-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Stan Ratliff <
>> ratliffstan@gmail.com>
>> Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:26 AM
>> To: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents
>>
>> Hello working group participants,
>>
>> One of the items identified during the WG meeting in Seoul was to
>> formally request, via the list, Working Group adoption of 5 extension
>> drafts related to DLEP. This email is that formal request.
>>
>> The drafts are:
>> 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-
>> extension-00.html
>> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-pause-extension-00
>> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-multi-
>> hop-extension-00
>> 4. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latenc
>> y-extension-00
>> 5. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-da-
>> credit-extension-00
>>
>> I have put all 5 extensions on this email for expediency only; please do
>> not assume that they must be adopted as a group. The chairs would greatly
>> appreciate thoughts from the WG, both positive and negative, by December
>> 12.
>>
>> For purposes of determining WG consensus, a lack of a response will be
>> seen as indicating support for adopting the draft (e.g. silence ==
>> acceptance).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stan
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>