IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] Why the WG Reactive Protocol to be Compatible with another?

"JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <jvasseur@cisco.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jvasseur@cisco.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 F273421F87E4 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:26:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AZ7IuM8jPhrg for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BB821F86D0 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:26:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6364; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361374002; x=1362583602; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=K5lmxROrcIHL656hlAhUojCKXGleh6owb/HN1lthQLA=; b=HcL4cAU5pz5WZxaYpRLSQiCaYoKTuiGgUgU6i14vj0sShhbxp/EkCTFX LMGeVkC/hg66aGfjvsa1ku38okWN5aZ7j88trC/0ZjjJZ8Tub0DMi/K9+ rHeR7phcZr/pWYn2Pbk8sV6TgC4sD2ttyeknwHMjVAa1hv1LSQtoqRChz I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAM/qJFGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFwFeBABZzgiABAQQBAQFrCxACAQgiHQcnCxQRAgQOBQgMh34MwDAEjl0xB4JfYQOnB4MHgic
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,702,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="179201463"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2013 15:26:33 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KFQX7o028606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:26:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.47]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:26:33 -0600
From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [manet] Why the WG Reactive Protocol to be Compatible with another?
Thread-Index: AQHOD36pPPlc817GAEiJ+2e5cuLhAQ==
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:26:32 +0000
Message-ID: <03B78081B371D44390ED6E7BADBB4A77232CA63D@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
References: <CADnDZ89R_L4=inUn6_yW5R0jY933orBdYfbLyvp8pZfpPGJWOQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ89R_L4=inUn6_yW5R0jY933orBdYfbLyvp8pZfpPGJWOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.145.251]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_03B78081B371D44390ED6E7BADBB4A77232CA63Dxmbrcdx02ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Why the WG Reactive Protocol to be Compatible with another?
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:26:43 -0000

Hi AB,

This is critical topic and I cannot agree more with you; the objective is in my opinion to come up with the best protocol for the IETF.
Let's be clear: the objective of the IETF is to produce qualitative protocols for the best of the IETF community and industry, not to make
X or Y happy. Every single good ideas borrowed from Load should in my opinion be adopted by AODVv2, if there is a consensus. On the
other hand, trying to design AODVv2 with the constraint of making it compatible with another protocol is a COMPLETE non sense.

Thanks.

JP.

On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

Hi Folks,

I am not sure why we will make effort of AODVv2 compatible with
LOADng, I am trying to find a good reason mentioned in the WG. I seen
the intention by some participants, but not sure was it intention to
merge DYMO+LOADng without compatibility (with either DYMO or LOADng)
or with percentage of compatibility. Do you think it is good way to
make the reactive protocol and then try to make it compatible?  Please
advise,

I will have to agree with the below proposal, that if the WG is
agreeing to make compatible with LOADng, then why not go for 100%
compatibility, just change the name title.

AB

Sub:Re: [manet] Reactive protocol decision process, for the record thoughts
On 2/16/13, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name<mailto:ulrich@herberg.name>> wrote:
Justin,

I very much agree with you, Justin. One point I would like to add is
that the WG will now spend a lot of time making the new AODVv2
compatible with LOADng (which is claimed in the current DYMO draft);
that is, in my opinion, a wasted effort since the LOADng draft is per
definition 100% compatible with LOADng (had that been the starting
point).
Ignoring a document that has multiple interoperable implementations,
deployments, MIB document, as well a support from at least a dozen
MANET participants (not only LOADng authors) without giving rational
was a disappointment for me.

Best regards
Ulrich

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org<mailto:manet@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email