IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Thu, 12 May 2011 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C754CE0669 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 01:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zXa8-DtxG0Mk for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 01:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DA6E0744 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 01:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1069480fxm.31 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 01:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=1jQNB9yIrMghm1yzVvE0QEUmZExuciB8Cg+tqySzvzE=; b=rNZimD2kzOpC10Y3QAnD93GfBKl1bTpZQb45EPrQWWPqgylGay121JsDf75HO7V72Y hs77Ix4KdHXeoQVqSSMabT3Pa4MGu/JpQc9uGXpqlEmx8sSn/eWZVjweCMSqsf+j2ogU h0rIG60K+A2bEekUHHa8kJeSj8IbEcpv7VXK8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=rBCSQXwrK5DnOskqPuQy6e8oU24Bf034dgOjXvX9SM5K0P5BpLOCKVJ2zaahbwkA/j yZxpdo3YczZhoBSWt1xwK/ZUR0tyBskGRMdzb1fTqQ5mdsli9lqcdw7ogciUSq+soL0v 7+vLQszooRPV4SXofyv7mMEuX11D+y3YBGaeQ=
Received: by 10.223.54.219 with SMTP id r27mr1348799fag.124.1305190445138; Thu, 12 May 2011 01:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.109.11 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2011 01:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <279997854.2123749.1305154773692.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr>
References: <4DCAC26F.4030604@earthlink.net> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEED717B5@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C592@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <279997854.2123749.1305154773692.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr>
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:53:45 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Y5grr2_r0NmM99xQ5ANOC8xs1a0
Message-ID: <BANLkTinPZvv_ZYHKDi4OX6WE_3Y7V_KthA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174486a2d8c4b604a3105477"
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:54:10 -0000

John,
I agree with Tom. It's not totally obvious which way to choose to go forward
with this.
I think a discussion needs to take place before deciding anything.
This thread may be the start of such a discussion?
Regards,
Emmanuel

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Henderson, Thomas R <
thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> wrote:

> John, some replies are inline below.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:11 PM
> > To: Henderson, Thomas R; Richard Ogier; ospf@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG
> > Document
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > The primary point of my email was Richard's presumptuousness.
> >
>
> I agree that it may be presumptuous to ask a WG to adopt an
> as-yet-unpublished draft.  However, I for one would like to understand
> better the decision that is being taken in adopting an update of RFC 5820 to
> solve the use case of draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.  Would
> similar future updates of the other MANET RFCs be precluded by such a
> decision?  Does this mean that ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01 will not be
> considered further as a WG document?
>
> Perhaps we could try to clarify whether the WG intention is to update the
> Experimental RFCs along these lines or rather to work on a single
> specification for the use case introduced by
> draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.
>
> > The comment about having multiple protocols to do the same thing being
> > a bad idea was simply a comment in passing.  And it is a bad idea -
> > this was the rationale given by the IETF in taking a position against
> > multiple OAM protocols for MPLS-TP.
> >
>
> I understand, but this is one rationale for the experimental track; see for
> example
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html (Section 3
> item 4)
>
> - Tom
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email