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

[Richard Ogier <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]> > 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
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[e-mail]
>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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf