Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Mon, 15 June 2015 19:03 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana@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 5B7271A700D; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 LGfpA0PRfnaL; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1E691A701D; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4727; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1434394965; x=1435604565; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=OZKXw/lUaLH9yDKTQaVI053XAIgaCLiZWdrYhHlwQt0=; b=QJ8IV1kvi1DNYQRJOpci6uFhig4fqabtqZkgJJx7TN/RPogD7dJhYozB DvRrII2htX4lmKMAZ+JvjWUREIIWN0TRt86ce3ka8gMqvIdQ5apSQZgAL QXJPblnd9+qe9yDMG7DufrPtVkWKbNvAtsqzAjzeJ9Mm7f0b+Zijdz6KK 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AJBQALIX9V/4UNJK1bgxCBMwa5OoQ0h1kCgTw6EgEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEEaw4QAgEIRjIlAgQBDQWIL8wJAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARmLRIRTMweELQEEhnqKDYJUAYckhB2BM45hh3wmY4FZgT1vgUaBAQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,620,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="159537693"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2015 19:02:44 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5FJ2iMM002676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:02:44 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.106]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:02:43 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHQmUnuajLfhADH00edYzbRKWlUcJ2uKqWA
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:02:43 +0000
Message-ID: <D1A49C12.B8002%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <20150528132630.13861.80616.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150528132630.13861.80616.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.253.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <0E1C3332220C924B8B22083520375334@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/oqeBwQB4SskfzPRqMhULJ4cNrek>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:03:34 -0000
On 5/28/15, 9:26 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <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.
- [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)