IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Wed, 11 May 2011 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.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 18F02E08C8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 WLb94YLZ4eXa for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og112.obsmtp.com (exprod7og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41CBE08C7 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob112.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTcsJaERlEMMvTlHlum0MrLi98y2U39u/@postini.com; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:11:40 PDT
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:10:36 -0700
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>, Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:10:35 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document
Thread-Index: AcwP/cBH1M3yrTPRSA+pbB/LgDH97QAGqdfwAAM7tnAAAGpwAA==
Message-ID: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C592@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
References: <24646CE17826CF4A8DF71F9856C7E65659240FE2F3@GVW1338EXA.americas.hpqcorp.net><4DCAC26F.4030604@earthlink.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C342@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEED717B5@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEED717B5@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 22:11:43 -0000

Tom,

The primary point of my email was Richard's presumptuousness.

The comment about having multiple protocols to do the same thing being a bad idea was simply a comment in passing.  And it is a bad idea - this was the rationale given by the IETF in taking a position against multiple OAM protocols for MPLS-TP.

Thanks,

John

Sent from my iPhone


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderson, Thomas R [mailto:thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:59 PM
> To: John E Drake; Richard Ogier; ospf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG
> Document
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > John E Drake
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:23 PM
> > To: Richard Ogier; ospf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG
> > Document
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> John, it has been on the OSPF WG charter to develop multiple OSPFv3
> MANET Experimental RFCs.
> 
> - Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email