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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
>Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:39 PM
>Cc: ospf-manet@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
>
>
>Let me summarize where I think we are  - In Dallas I believe 
>we did have a "rough" consensus among those actively 
>participated on the OSPF wireless design team that the core 
>OSPF MDR algorithm for flooding and adjacency reduction should 
>be the approach that we submit to the OSPF/MANET WGs for 
>consideration. This didn't include topology reduction or some 
>of the other enhancements that are confusing the discussion today.
>We did vastly under estimate the arguments based on factors 
>other than those considered by the design team. These 
>arguments came from minority members of the design team 
>including some who heretofore hadn't participated as well as 
>other interested individuals. These factors include 
>computation complexity, deployment momentum, disagreement with 
>the problem statement, and possibly even the reluctance or 
>inability to understand the MDR draft. Any others?

I think its good to have this historically correct and thanks for writing
some of the timeline summary. I can't help but remember that overoptimizing
was a non-goal agreed to by the initial wireless design team members, ADs,
and chairs.  The reasoning behind this was that we really proposed this
effort in the hopes of a consensus design within an open protocol framework.
Early on the adjacency reduction was shown to be a first order design
effect.  I think this was a big step forward in understanding the design
space.  My reading was a basic open framework MANET interface+optimized
flooding+adjacency reduction method could then be agreed upon as a core spec
and further alternate optimizations could follow

I personally never underestimated the argument potential and this is why I
believe upfront we agreed to not overoptimize this design effort and to
scope the early goals of the design team to improve consensus probability. I
am certainly disappointed with what occurred from the "rough consensus"
decision point forward.  There will always be multiple valid ways to solve
particular problems.  So we can continue to do multiple proposals and pay
the related cost.  The original proposal was not to create another MANET WG
scenario but to have a consensus framework for OSPF extension improving
mobile wireless performance.

-Joe

>
>The question is where we go now. Independent of draft status,  
>it doesn't look like we'll easily reach an agreement.Going 
>forward with multiple drafts is one option but everyone should 
>realize that this will also impact future optimizations which 
>will undoubtedly be proposed for the contentious OSPF MANET 
>interface type.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>
>_______________________________________________
>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