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

[Richard Ogier <[e-mail]>]

Acee,

I was hoping it would be possible to decide on a single approach
by having a team of (perhaps 3) unbiased judges look at the
relevant evidence and compare the approaches.
But maybe that is not practical.

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.)

I agree with the following paragraph of Tom Henderson:

>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.  I would like the people who have objected to the
>past process to propose some alternatives with technical detail.  I
>strongly believe it should be an agreed goal to avoid multiple draft
>standards on this topic.
>

Richard




Acee Lindem wrote:

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



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