Re: [manet] Reactive protocol decision process, for the record thoughts

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

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

On Feb 14, 2013, at 17:12, Justin Dean <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Let me start by saying that I think no good will come from this message but I feel it's important to get my thoughts (which I believe reflect those of a not insubstantial number of manet participants) out here on the record.  The following message may seem very late to the party and it is. I have held off for so long because I was hopeful that things could still work themselves out between between the loadng-dymo camps, clearly this did not happen. Also, I was hopeful that things would still work themselves out between loadng-dymo authors, clearly this has not happened. I do feel getting my thoughts out there on the record is important regardless of how unproductive it may be which is why I am sending it after much internal debate.
>
> I am disappointed in the choice of the starting point, dymo over loadng, as the working group document.  My personal opinion about the decision matters little in this regard, however what I really most object to is the process by which this decision was made.
>
> A while back Adrian was brought in to break a deadlock after the last IETF to facilitate a productive way forward (I did not and still don't envy his job in this regard). He posted [17 Dec] to the list asking people to reply to three options for a way forward: 1. Remove reactive protocol from the charter; 2. Have the AD select one of the documents (other unlikely to be published); 3. Work on both as experimental.  For the record I did not reply as I thought these options weren't the only options.  Also quote from that email "This is not a vote, but I am taking the mood of the working group in order to inform my decision."  Later [14 Jan] it seems to me that it very much was used as a vote when a single document was selected.
>
> The rational for selection of one document over the other has been entirely lacking. There have been arguments from both sides on why one document is better than the other.  To me those arguments are not equally valid but I can see how they could be considered equal to to some.  If they were equal or near enough then a coin flip or some other such random method of choosing would be appropriate.  As it happened we were handed a decision, one which (to me) went one step further than what I believed to be a false representation of the options to begin with:  deciding that the wg would proceed with versus having an AD picking one of the documents. I had expected some limited time/discussion to allow manet members to put forth their arguments/rational on which document should be selected. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
>
> This message is not intended to roll back time or assign blame.  It very much seems to me that nearly everyone involved is doing the best they can with what they have.  I just wanted my thoughts on the process recorded now before it was entirely too late to do so.
>
> Justin Dean
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet