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

Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 13 November 2006 18:52 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjguc-00073G-Lx; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:52:06 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjgs3-00067o-Ft for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:49:27 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjgf9-0002fo-45 for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:36:11 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2006 10:35:59 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,418,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="344344251:sNHT3683980200"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kADIZxEa007470; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:35:59 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kADIZqOt008313; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:35:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:35:48 -0500
Received: from [10.82.208.5] ([10.82.208.5]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:35:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4558BB03.8090501@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:35:47 -0500
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended
References: <45587A54.1090309@cisco.com> <45589EAA.6030305@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <45589EAA.6030305@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2006 18:35:48.0526 (UTC) FILETIME=[89E09CE0:01C70752]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2525; t=1163442959; x=1164306959; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=sjdkim8002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=acee@cisco.com; z=From:=20Acee=20Lindem=20<acee@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20IETF=2067=20OSPF=20WG=20Meeting=20minutes=20 -=20Correct=20file=20appended |Sender:=20; bh=xGmoDeT1CTl+Ovfyn2FUCqkssGelcjENmgrMe76DrX4=; b=I4b9qBL2qh3PNe+OPC/DnYcg14E5JIgy6tOMpOoTu1Jdv1VypUfxaPBEOSgQQqmsQzHOA1IU dYHYPncsLMfXEthVFMXsdJH91z+/h4l54t71MySJZkT0QHf2+tWY6gpW;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=acee@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
Cc: OSPF List <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

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
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf