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

[Aniket Desai <[e-mail]>]

Hi Padma,

I know RFC 2119 very well.

Let me cut and paste some sentences from RFC 3626 from the OLSR draft:

    The purpose of dividing the functioning of OLSR into a core
    functionality and a set of auxiliary functions is to provide a simple
    and easy-to-comprehend protocol

    Due to its proactive nature, the OLSR protocol has a natural control
    over the flow of its control traffic

Now if I were to write an MDR draft and if I constructed a sentence as:

         The purpose of creating this MDR draft is to extend the 
OSPF's broadcast interface in a natural way. Details follow.

How is it different from what is there in RFC 3626? As long as we 
understand the context in which we are talking, I think this term 
should be acceptable. You are always free to challenge the context.

I understand that the fuss was about the reference that MDRs were a 
natural way to extend OSPF for MANET. I agree that it was an 
aggressive overclaim. I am merely advocating putting it in its 
correct context; that is a *natural extension of broadcast DR 
interface*. I think that there should be a qualifying adjective 
before *extension*, because no one else has shown that there is any 
other way to extend a broadcast interface for MANETs. Hence the 
emphasis on natural. Please suggest if you would like to use another 
adjective instead of *natural*.

Sincerely,

Aniket

At 12:46 PM 10/3/2006, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
>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
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet


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