Re: [manet] Working group last call for draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis and draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization

["Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[e-mail]>]

Abdussalam,

On Aug 9, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



On Friday, August 8, 2014, Christopher Dearlove wrote:
Adrian

Thanks for the effort in unearthing this. I take the same view as Stan. I will note that I have implemented this, but don't have any publishable performance results. But as I said, I agree with Stan on the lack of necessity of this.

 The draft is updating two standards, and promoting better performance. I remember when the first present of the draft at IETF 89, I asked you of its difference, and the answer was no much code difference just performance.

 When we promote optimum that means best performance? So how can this WG get sure of that optimum behavior, do we just follow the author/implementor, is that IETF practice.  The results can be necessary to prove it's a suitable standard update. If you want it to be not necessary to give results then no need to update our standards, just a new standard extension.

There is a long history in the IETF of promoting standards and extensions using a thorough logical analysis of the protocols. Note that this does *not* imply an analysis of *a given implementation* of a protocol, via simulation or otherwise. The analysis of a given protocol, or extension, is undertaken by the authors, and by Working Group participants with sufficient interest (and time) to undertake the analysis. This is a critical part of the consensus mode of operation within the IETF, and has never required formal proofs, or simulation runs/output, etc. The stated goal of the IETF has always been "rough consensus and working code".

So at this point, we *still* have the authors, and others in the WG, in consensus that the document represents *exactly* what it says it represents - an optimization for NHDP. If you have analysis to the contrary, WGLC is *exactly* the time to bring that analysis up, and share with the WG situations where you believe implementing this change will have an adverse effect - either on performance, or on protocol integrity. Otherwise, with my co-chair hat firmly on, it still looks like we have rough consensus, with you being "in the rough".

Regards,
Stan



AB