Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended

Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net> Tue, 14 November 2006 16:51 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gk1VF-0001Mg-Lz; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:51:17 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gk1VE-0001MZ-2d for ospf@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:51:16 -0500
Received: from pop-gadwall.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.61]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gk1VB-0008RA-MB for ospf@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:51:16 -0500
Received: from dialup-4.243.131.37.dial1.sanfrancisco1.level3.net ([4.243.131.37] helo=earthlink.net) by pop-gadwall.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1Gk1V9-0001N7-00; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:51:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4559F3FB.6020402@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:51:07 -0800
From: Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 (emach0202)
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "U. Nilrebmorf" <nilrebmorfunam@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended
References: <45587A54.1090309@cisco.com> <45589EAA.6030305@earthlink.net> <4558BB03.8090501@cisco.com> <4558C236.4040709@earthlink.net> <96a9156a0611131758s7f281111y3eeb0fd309bce47d@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 03169bfe4792634a390035a01a6c6d2f
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

U. Nilrebmorf wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> I was at the meeting. The consensus was that since simulations are not 
> sufficient to decide for one solution over another, simulations are 
> also not sufficient to exclude one solution.


I disagree with your reasoning.  If we had 100 solutions, and simulations
show that 10 of them perform much better than the other 90, then I think
that might be a good way to exclude the 90 and keep only 10.
Whereas by your reasoning we should keep all 100.

Richard

> So it was decided to move on with 3 experimental. If I am not 
> mistaken, it is read in the minutes from the meeting:
>
> "Acee: all authors have been attentive to comments. The 3 I-Ds should 
> move forward to draft-ietf-ospf to go experimental."
>
> That's what the working group decided in the end. If you had been 
> there maybe it would be clearer to you?
>
> Hope to see you at the next meeting.
>
> Nilreb
>
>
>
> On 11/13/06, Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net 
> <mailto:ogier@earthlink.net> > wrote:
>
>     Acee,
>
>     I am not sure I understand what you mean.  The MDR and OR/SP
>     drafts have already been evaluated exensively via GTNetS
>     simulations.  INRIA's solution has not yet participated
>     in any such evaluation. So if we require all the drafts
>     to participate in the GTNetS evaluation (which was the
>     original plan two years ago), then we *are* holding all
>     drafts to the same experimental publication criteria.
>
>     Or, are you saying that we should give INRIA a free pass
>     to avoid participating in the GTNetS evaluation?
>     I really don't think this would be fair, and therefore
>     seriously doubt that the consensus would agree with this.
>
>     I don't think the voting at the meeting clearly distinguished
>     between the two options of accepting 2 versus 3 drafts.
>     This distinction was not made explicit at the meeting.
>
>     Richard
>
>
>     Acee Lindem wrote:
>
>     > Hi Richard,
>     > I think we agreed upon a process to move along and we should
>     > continue to hold all the drafts to the same experimental
>     publication
>     > criteria. I guess the point was that we should not limit the
>     number to
>     > 2 if we're going to publish more than 1. Without injecting too much
>     > judgment
>     > on the MPR draft's maturity, did everyone at the meeting hear the
>     > same message?
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Acee
>     >
>     > Richard Ogier wrote:
>     >
>     >>>      Acee: Show hands on what should be done:
>     >>>            - Quit working on OSPF MANET: none
>     >>>            - Continue to drive to consensus: none
>     >>>            - Refine drafts and publish as experimental: 2/3's
>     of people
>     >>>              in room. To be validated on list.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Acee,
>     >>
>     >> Correct me if I am wrong, but since the latest version of INRIA's
>     >> draft was available only last week, and since previous versions did
>     >> not fully specify the protocol (as pointed out by Phil Spagnolo in
>     >> his 9/28/06 post to the ospf-manet list), it has not yet been
>     decided
>     >> that INRIA's draft will be published as experimental.
>     >>
>     >> Moreover, since INRIA has not participated in the GTNetS simulation
>     >> comparison that Boeing has been conducting for the last two
>     >> years, in which the MDR draft has been compared to Cisco's
>     >> OR/SP drafts (results can be found at Boeing's OSPF-MANET website
>     >> http://hipserver.mct.phantomworks.org/ietf/ospf/ ),
>     >> it is only fair that we should do such a comparison with
>     INRIA's draft
>     >> before deciding to publish it as experimental.
>     >>
>     >> In fact, that has been the plan since the Dallas IETF meeting
>     in March,
>     >> and Philippe agreed to this in his message of 4/5/06:
>     >>
>     >> Philippe Jacquet wrote on 4/5/06:
>     >> > Yes it would be great to synchronize our efforts on GTNet.
>     >> > Let's see how to proceed.
>     >>
>     >> Now, 7 months later, INRIA has implemented their solution in
>     GTNetS,
>     >> so the next step would be for Boeing to work with INRIA to make
>     >> sure the code is debugged and implemented in a manner that allows
>     >> a fair comparison, just as Boeing has done with the OR/SP and
>     >> MDR solutions over the last two years.  Hopefully, this work can
>     >> be completed by the next IETF meeting.
>     >>
>     >> I think it is reasonable and fair to require such a comparison
>     >> to be done before INRIA's draft is accepted, especially
>     >> since they promised to synchronize efforts 7 months ago.
>     >> Let me know if you agree or disagree.
>     >> IMO, to give INRIA a free pass and avoid such a comparison
>     >> would be unfair to those of us who worked hard for the last two
>     >> years on the GTNetS simulation effort.
>     >>
>     >> Richard
>     >>
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OSPF mailing list
>     OSPF@ietf.org <mailto:OSPF@ietf.org>
>     https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.13.22/512 - Release Date: 11/1/2006
>



_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf