RE: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2

Richard, 

>
>I was hoping that the WG would want to standardize the best possible
>extension of OSPF.  

First off, there are those of us that aren't convinced that MDR's are
the 
"best possible extension of OSPF". 

>But from what Joel is saying, Cisco could pay
>several people to implement their solution, and it would be adopted
>as the standard regardless of how good the solution is?
>

Wow. Now, Cisco is going to "pay several people to implement" the
OR solution, just to get it adopted? And this after some of the INRIA
folks "are trying to fit [MPR's] in because you have a special interest
in 
MPRs", and just because some of us disagree with you, we're guilty of 
"politics"?!?!?   ...sigh.... I shudder to think of what's coming next,
but 
just in case, met me emphatically state for the record -- I like
puppies!
And it can be argued that it's a "natural extension" that I like
kittens, too!     

 ;)

Stan

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Ogier [mailto:rich.ogier@earthlink.net] 
>Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 6:59 PM
>To: Acee Lindem (acee)
>Cc: ospf-manet@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
>
>Acee Lindem wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> I'd have to agree with Joel. Addiitonally, reaching consensus on the 
>> criteria
>> and who has the mandate to make the decision may be as difficult as 
>> agreeing
>> on an approach.  So, we could bring in others, e.g. the 
>routing ADs or 
>> members of the
>> routing directorate, but this may not bring us any closer to 
>concensus.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee 
>
>
>Acee,
>
>In that case, I am strongly opposed to having multiple drafts.
>As Joe implied, this would just create another MANET WG scenario
>which is what we were trying to avoid. Tom Henderson also said
>
>> I strongly believe it should be an agreed goal to avoid 
>multiple draft
>> standards on this topic.
>
>He also said
>
>> If the WG decides to adopt multiple experimental drafts, 
>there should be
>> some criteria defined for making technical progress in the 
>evaluation,
>> so we do not come to the end and have the results and whole 
>methodology
>> questioned once again. 
>
>
>So, several of us seem to be opposed to going with multiple drafts
>(although I will let the others speak for themselves).
>
>I was hoping that the WG would want to standardize the best possible
>extension of OSPF.  But from what Joel is saying, Cisco could pay
>several people to implement their solution, and it would be adopted
>as the standard regardless of how good the solution is?
>If this is how things will be decided, then I would not want to
>waste my time.  I.e., if we go with multiple drafts and have no
>criteria, then I am not sure I would want to participate.
>
>So I guess that leaves alternatives 1, 2, and 4 in your previous email.
>I think the best approach is to try to find a team of 3 unbiased
>judges, possibly including one or both ADs, and give the teams a few
>months to come up with a draft, a position paper, and data to support
>their solution (alternative 3).
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>
>>> Why must the teams agree on a methodology?
>>> The point of experimental publication is to get the definitions out 
>>> there so that people can implement and use them.
>>> If it does not get used, then there is no need to move anything to 
>>> Proposed Standard.
>>> If one gets used, and the others do not, then that one ends 
>up on the 
>>> standards track.  Probably with improvements from the 
>implementation 
>>> and deployment experience.
>>> If several get implemented and deployed, then we hope to 
>learn things 
>>> from that deployment.  We may discover that factors that never 
>>> occurred to the working group will turn out to be 
>important.  It may 
>>> be that factors the working group thought important turn out to be 
>>> irrelevant.
>>>
>>> The IETF has almost never agreed on criteria for moving from 
>>> experimental to proposed standard, other than "lets see 
>what happens."
>>> And I would be amazed at the IETF giving significant weight to 
>>> simulation experience for that transition.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel M. Halpern
>>>
>>> PS: When this has been done in the past, it has been with the view 
>>> that it was intended to get real world deployment experience.  And 
>>> that such experience was what mattered for any possible 
>eventual move 
>>> from experimental to standards track status.
>>>
>>> At 03:50 PM 10/2/2006, Richard Ogier wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that if we decide to go forward with multiple experimental
>>>> drafts, then we MUST first agree on a methodology for comparing the
>>>> proposals, and all participants MUST agree to cooperate with this
>>>> methodology.  (E.g., if one team refuses to implement 
>their solution
>>>> in GTNetS, then they will be disqualified.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ospf-manet mailing list
>>> Ospf-manet@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ospf-manet mailing list
>Ospf-manet@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet
>

_______________________________________________
Ospf-manet mailing list
Ospf-manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet