Re: [OSPF] [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt> (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC

Acee Lindem <> Mon, 17 June 2013 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4275C21F859A for <>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.516
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G8gbXDhszaYR for <>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D98521F88EA for <>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f0e6d0000015f1-6c-51bf02b8934f
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 36.A1.05617.8B20FB15; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:36:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:36:07 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt> (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC
Thread-Index: AQHOaslhL0C56oHghEe07f/spCHwWZk5Jn+AgADI1ACAACyhAA==
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:36:07 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <090201ce629e$9712a760$c537f620$> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE4717D1ABeusaamb101ericsso_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprAIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrO4Opv2BBi96ZS2+3WhlsvjRc4PZ 4tWzfjaLlnv32B1YPFZ9mcDssXPWXXaPJUt+Mnms2LySMYAlitsmKbGkLDgzPU/fLoE748uq eywFU80qZn3fztrAeEW3i5GTQ0LARGLTrnZ2CFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgJHGSV+9W1hgnCWM0rc uHGDFaSKTUBH4vmjf8wgtoiAkcTS31vAOpgFJjJKLFg7jxXEERaYzyix7v0iRhBHRGABo8T/ pQ1MEC1OEk9W/gZbyCKgKnHhYBNYnFfAW2Lpm6lQ+84wSyybdBGsiFMgUGLHl0tg+xiBLvx+ ag1YA7OAuMStJ/OZIC4XkFiy5zwzhC0q8fLxP1YIW1liyZP9LBD1+RLzJp9ig1gmKHFy5hOW CYyis5CMmoWkbBaSMoi4jsSC3Z/YIGxtiWULXzPD2GcOPIbqtZZomb+LFVnNAkaOVYwcpcWp ZbnpRoabGIERekyCzXEH44JPlocYpTlYlMR535/aFSgkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmD E0RwSTUwdknbVm4KnrZR2Vkz4eGb+qbT224J7urtXnh0fvhyhWe7l/kvVRV5tdrt182kOsno 7f612bfmLTrnf+nG/UaRc26Vd1YqZc2TNnE/l+mQeOuB+u4ZmkGSu97JS0Urvru6+2e/0yHv tSxODZw3f4vHfUiwWd4dEfJf2oe7/GVtmtMdB57romrHlFiKMxINtZiLihMBdyvq/aMCAAA=
Cc: OSPF List <>, Stan Podin <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt> (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:36:15 -0000

Hi Abdu,

On Jun 17, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

Hi Acee,

I distinguish between the word MANET and OSPF they are not the same thing but all are for same IETF. One is a network and the other is a protocol, so the network is more general than a protocol in terms of applicability.


The RFC5614 is specification related to the MANET network, but I know that this WG done the work, but I always think it is important to have joint work between related WGs participants not separation within IETF. All RFCs are for the same IETF so they should be related some how.

At a high level, I agree and this is why we have an IETF Last Call. In practice, the alignment of multiple WGs with overlapping charters is a difficult problem. However, in this specific case, I don't agree that it is desirable for there to be alignment. RFC 5444 is about packet formats and encoding for protocols in the MANET WG (as opposed to MANET networks in the broader sense). Hence, I don't see that it has applicability here and it may not even have applicability to MANET protocols that predate it.



On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Acee Lindem <<>> wrote:

This is an extension to an existing OSPF specification (FRC 5614). Even if it weren't, the OSPF WG has no mandate to adhere to RFC 5444 or any other MANET WG documents. Since this work was previously done in the OSPF WG, there is no reason to even consider bringing it to MANET (although we welcome their review).


On Jun 16, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> The following were first of my comments on the document and I got some answers;
> Answers
> As a request from the chair and for wg information, after I got to be
> subscribed in this WG. Thanking you,
> AB
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list