IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net> Wed, 11 May 2011 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ogier@earthlink.net>
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 1E454E0870 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.941
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.941 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
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 w-XYd-vcd-7X for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FC8E07F4 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=ZHVuufr2LxCR6qKrMHkKMv155Yfr696AVL7XnZS8ajiCiw8u3CstVelMQ9NF4hLj; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [66.81.104.125] by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <ogier@earthlink.net>) id 1QKHgd-0000Io-R6; Wed, 11 May 2011 18:15:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4DCB0AEA.3060804@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:17:14 -0700
From: Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
References: <24646CE17826CF4A8DF71F9856C7E65659240FE2F3@GVW1338EXA.americas.hpqcorp.net> <4DCAC26F.4030604@earthlink.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C342@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C342@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d478504bcfd8a9496c945d3421cc13fbf9c1ffd1cb3e6336278d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 66.81.104.125
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:15:22 -0000

John,

A few years ago, we had three drafts dealing with the same problem of OSPF-MANET, and now we have three Experimental RFCs providing different solutions to this problem.  All of these RFCs can be applied just as easily to solve the special case of a single-hop broadcast network.  If we want to choose one of these solutions over the other two, there needs to be a reason and a formal decision, which I have not seen.  One nice thing about having two drafts showing how both OSPF-OR and OSPF-MDR can be applied to single-hop broadcast networks, is that it will help people to understand and compare these different solutions.

Assuming OSPF-MDR is at least as good a solution as OSPF-OR in solving this problem, which I believe, then I don't think it is presumptuous to think it is fair to give both solutions an equal chance.  But it is true that people will need to read both drafts before they can come to that same conclusion.  Therefore, my point is to let people know there will soon be another draft describing how another OSPF-MANET extension can be applied to this case.

Thanks,
Richard

John E Drake wrote:
mid5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C342@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net" type="cite"> 
Richard,

Don't you think you are being a bit presumptuous?  I think this decision is the prerogative of the working group and I don't necessarily think 'fairness' has anything to do with it.  Further, having multiple drafts in a given subject area is generally considered a bad idea.

Thanks,

John

Sent from my iPhone


  
-----Original Message-----
From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Ogier
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:08 AM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG
Document

Note that I plan to submit an analogous draft that describes how
OSPF-MDR (RFC 5614) can be applied to single-hop broadcast networks.
If
draft-retana-ospf-manet-single-hop is accepted as a WG document, then
it
would also be fair to accept the analogous draft for OSPF-MDR as a WG
document.

Regards,
Richard
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email