IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Mon, 02 October 2006 19:23 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUTNc-0002gW-IB; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:23:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUTNb-0002gR-HJ for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:23:07 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUTNa-00043Q-9e for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:23:07 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2006 15:23:06 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,245,1157342400"; d="scan'208"; a="105418262:sNHT52461332"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k92JN66B027600 for <ospf-manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:23:06 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k92JN4uU028577 for <ospf-manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:23:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.43]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:23:05 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:23:04 -0400
Message-ID: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76402998E91@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
Thread-Index: AcbmSbcaaWgSQSedSKKflFDOFcwUmAADcawg
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2006 19:23:05.0369 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F6B0090:01C6E658]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1057; t=1159816986; x=1160680986; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sratliff@cisco.com; z=From:=22Stan=20Ratliff=20\(sratliff\)=22=20<sratliff@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20[Ospf-manet]=20Re=3A=20Ospf-manet=20Digest, =20Vol=2011, =20Issue= 202 |To:=22Acee=20Lindem=20\(acee\)=22=20<acee@cisco.com>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DQJbMxKbdovyr9/A0iaSOCXffziY=3D; b=CaqYZSHi41p6RNzhHGKG/dwIKkzvQ8dmhC1gfLwsZrxecoloAGkT0bP6Qx4zd8IKKgIBSW/k Ng7tGkFpVbDhxdg9zzW33im2KoQsn54Cko8sZYouF1OT+W0hp4XAOoIe;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=sratliff@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
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

Acee, 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) 
>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
>
>
>
>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.
>

I still believe progressing with multiple experimental drafts, producing

implementations that can be contrasted and compared in real-world
situations, is the best approach for the WG to proceed. Reading the 
email thread of the past week, I believe that all of the participants 
have either explicitly or implicitly stated that pursuing multiple
experimental drafts is a workable option. Therefore, I believe the 
WG should proceed along that tack. 

Regards,
Stan

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email