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

[Richard Ogier <[e-mail]>]

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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet
>>
>
>



_______________________________________________
Ospf-manet mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet