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

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
>
>