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

[Richard Ogier <[e-mail]>]

There does not *seem* to be sufficient evidence at this time,
but I believe there is more evidence that has not yet been presented
(Boeing has been doing a comparison study), and additional evidence
can also be obtained.  So, it is possible to select a single solution if
we try harder, by obtaining more evidence as needed and having
better technical discussions based on the evidence.

Richard

P.S.  For example, my post yesterday, in which I avoided using the
word "natural", contained some specific points that can be discussed.



Drake, John E wrote:

>Advance both as experimental.  There does not seem to be sufficient
>evidence to select a single solution.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:58 PM
>>To: Joel M. Halpern
>>Cc: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
>>
>>
>>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
>>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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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