Re: [manet] AODVv2 responses to recent comments

Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de> Thu, 17 March 2016 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de>
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 86D2B12D9BF for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 snTyEWbD759s for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08B7F12D84A for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (envelope-from <lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de>) id <1agady-002GAX-It>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:19:26 +0100
Received: from ws5627.eduroam.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.56.27]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (envelope-from <lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de>) id <1agady-002fWf-A9>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:19:26 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_76571450-7767-4005-81C1-99DCBD123DB4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237C4D5@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:19:28 +0100
Message-Id: <68F1C08B-82C2-484B-8B9C-71ABE350EB57@fu-berlin.de>
References: <CAAePS4DCds3_vqJ8jwymmHWJdH4jXg=ksJ8RO4QqRFL77py7ng@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D8A6F4A3D@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <56D4EB7D.4010002@earthlink.net> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D8C0227E6@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <944B9E01-74B7-45AD-ACB8-FA79347BC22E@fu-berlin.de> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237C4D5@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-Originating-IP: 141.22.56.27
X-ZEDAT-Hint: A
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/eQ5Hd4reN8QPMiv9HZGj2h-b8ac>
Cc: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>, manet <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] AODVv2 responses to recent comments
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: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:19:36 -0000

Hello Christopher,

> Am 16.03.2016 um 18:22 schrieb Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>:
> 
> I haven’t followed the example (I hope to find time - but that’s true of too many things, with DLEP ahead of AODVv2 on this list).
>  
> But we have a loop, a pretty fundamental problem in a routing algorithm, being discussed by the authors off-list,

If we could’ve, I would’ve loved to share this with the list immediately. I’m not sure if there’s a procedure for this kind of situation we should’ve followed? If there is, I’d be more than happy to learn from it and do better next time.

> while in parallel assuring the list that “Other discussion about routing loops has not identified routing loop problems in the existing specification.” (see email chain below).
>  
> I think we have a real problem with what’s wanting to advance to Proposed Standard soon, in terms of process and confidence.

I think I understand where your worries come from. However, I do think our efforts to improve our communication are visible, and apart from the communication delay, the fact that this research exists actually improves my confidence in the document: It found loops that were (imho) pretty tricky to come up with by thinking hard about the problem alone, and we’ve been able to fix them, making AODVv2 more solid.

>  
> (I still haven’t managed to even write up comments on the perhaps one third of the draft I have read through yet.)

Personally, I’d be happy to go through them in chunks as well :) Maybe that could also speed up the back and forth of „x isn’t quite right“ „would y resolve the issue?“ „yes/no“, which would in turn speed up the progress of this document? Anyhow, all feedback is very welcome.

Best regards,
Lotte Steenbrink


>  
> --
> 
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Laboratories
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 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
>