Re: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 7

Padma Pillay-Esnault <ppe@cisco.com> Tue, 03 October 2006 16:46 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUnQ2-0002mi-D2; Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:46:58 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUnQ0-0002g2-Cx for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:46:56 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUnPz-0008Fh-1w for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:46:56 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2006 09:46:55 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,251,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="344359963:sNHT2831045330"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k93GkrOC013289; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:46:53 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k93GkrYv023072; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:46:53 -0700
Received: from [192.168.0.4] ([10.21.113.94]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:46:52 -0700
Message-ID: <452293EF.8000005@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:46:39 -0700
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <ppe@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Macintosh/20041103)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aniket Desai <adesai@opnet.com>
Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 7
References: <E1GUmiF-0007fT-K7@megatron.ietf.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20061003120748.036d1e38@mailserver.opnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20061003120748.036d1e38@mailserver.opnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2006 16:46:52.0858 (UTC) FILETIME=[876111A0:01C6E70B]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1987; t=1159894013; x=1160758013; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ppe@cisco.com; z=From:Padma=20Pillay-Esnault=20<ppe@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[Ospf-manet]=20Re=3A=20Ospf-manet=20Digest, =20Vol=2011, =20Issue= 207; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DAxAL2U7WmBKux9a1VmLtdd7pzLY=3D; b=TSAVH3KjL3MpO+bn0/R1mRqNiOBuhpLKcnyaNZMQ0AfkmJknbHSG2P3YJByniCtWGHsZD+Ju o/YQwhi1JPgwZTIxb8SabZIJ0nwiD0Bt040XRyqQQ/LQDO/OPuXv/yQr;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=ppe@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Cc: ospf-manet@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ospf-manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of OSPFv3 extensions supporting MANET <ospf-manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet>, <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf-manet>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf-manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet>, <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-manet-bounces@ietf.org

Aniket


Aniket Desai wrote:

> At 12:01 PM 10/3/2006, you wrote:
>
>> For example, that is why Aniket and I have been
>> explaining why the MDR approach is a "natural extension".
>> This is a very important point, since once people understand
>> *why* we claim it is a "natural extension", they will understand
>> the MDR approach better.
>
>
> That is the point I have also made and I corroborate it. It should be 
> acceptable to use the phrase that "an MDR is a natural extension of a 
> broadcast DR". MDRs must be discussed in that context. Otherwise the 
> whole point is lost in unimportant issues. As far as I understand, 
> this debate is about scalability versus robustness, and I don't think 
> anyone can claim that other solutions can achieve better scalability 
> than MDR. The claim is only that MDRs lose in robustness what they 
> achieve in scalability (which has to be seen anyway and can be 
> discounted upfront for the simple reason that MDRs don't force you to 
> use reduced adjacencies; MDRs give you the reduced adjacencies as a 
> *gift* - but that is another discussion). The point is that MDRs do 
> achieve something, which is scalability BECAUSE it naturally extends 
> the broadcast DR.
>
> Thus if no one has any more objection to the usage of this term, I 
> think it is perfectly legit for Dr. Ogier and others to continue using 
> it.
>

This is a engineering forum and a scientific one. In IETF, we use precise
language - RFC 2119 for example. IMHO "Natural extension" does not fit in 
aforementionned category. This term is too foggy, "natural" has too many complex 
meaning in layman terms it is best avoided. I don't understand why "natural" has 
to be here, in most drafts "extension" is just sufficient.


Padma


> Sincerely,
>
> Aniket
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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