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

["Drake, John E" <[e-mail]>]

Amen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aniket Desai [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:54 AM
> To: Padma Pillay-Esnault
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 7
> 
> 
> I understand that usage of such a term in a draft is not a good idea. 
> But to make the discussions as precise as a draft is very daunting, 
> and we will stall if we did not take liberty of the ongoing context 
> and tried to qualify something as a result. As Dr. Ogier has said, 
> from a functional perspective, there are great similarities between a 
> DR and MDR and hence it follows *naturally*. The term is not without 
> a valid context. That said, I think this is stretching too far and I 
> retract from this discussion. I believe that the following sentence 
> would do: "OSPF MDR extends the functionality and capabilities of the 
> OSPF broadcast interface".
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Aniket
> 
> At 01:45 PM 10/3/2006, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
> >Aniket
> >
> >Aniket Desai wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >In OSPF drafts you don't see natural, DC is not a natural extension,
> >nor is NSSA, nor are other features. They are just extensions.
> >
> >>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*.
> >Why is it so important to put this adjective, would removing it
> >change the meaning of the functionality ?
> >I don't think so.
> >It's presence kind of open the debate - What is natural and 
> what is not ?
> >
> >Extensions are just extensions and that should suffice.
> >Let's not add superfluous terms.
> >
> >Padma
> >
> >>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
> 

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