Re: [OSPF] update "draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt"

[Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>]

Zengjie,

 I could only see two potential reasons for the IETF to publish a document
 of this kind:

  a) if proposed behavior affected interoperability and thus correct
     network behavior OR
  b) we wanted to encourage implementers to introduce certain optimizations
     so as to improve overall network experience for the user

 Unfortunately, the situation at hand doesn't qualify for either of the
 two:

   a) timing of hellos does not affect protocol correctness AND
   b) there's no need to encourage this behavior as people actually do
      that already.

 So, it has nothing to do with how good your idea is, but rather that
 there is no apparent need for a document.

 BTW, I personally don't see a need for this doc either.
 
-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

Monday, June 19, 2006, 4:29:20 AM, Zengjie Kou wrote:
> hi, mike
>  For interoperability of the immediate hello, i think it is necessary.
>  If each implementation is independent, the mechanism will be not
> consistent and the effort of immediate hello will be small.
>  If we standardize the implementation or mechanism, all the router
> supporting immediate hello will respond conformably. The
> effort will be great.
>  The experiment data in the draft shows some evident benefits with
> immediate hello consistent interoperability.

> thanks
> Zengjie

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "mike shand" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] update
> "draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt"


>> At 20:09 17/06/2006, Acee Lindem wrote:
>>>Hi Zengjie,
>>>Russ White wrote:
>>>
>>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> >Hash: SHA1
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>Speaking as a WG member, my personal opinion is that the WG should
>>> >>accept this document an an informational of BCP track RFC.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >This sounds fine.... Count my vote in that direction, as well.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>Actually, I meant NOT accept as WG document I guess that what I get for
>>>trying
>>>to respond to E-mail sitting in the middle seat on a crowded plane. Here
>>>is my
>>>reasoning why:
>>>
>>>1. This behavior is not new - there are several implementations that
>>>already reply immediately in certain situations.
>>>2. There are many ways of doing this and it is unlikely we will
>>>agree on the exact details of how it should be done. I, for one,
>>>have implemented it differently than documented in this draft.
>> 
>> and more particularly it doesn't matter from an interoperability 
>> point of view which way you do it, so
>> this doesn't seem to be behaviour which it makes sense to standardize.
>> 
>>         Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>I just don't think there is that much to be gained by documenting
>>>this after the fact when there isn't agreement on the sudtleties of
>>>operation.
>>>
>>>Sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Acee
>>>
>>> >:-)
>>> >
>>> >Russ
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >- --
>>> >[e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
>>> >
>>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> >Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
>>> >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>> >
>>> >iD8DBQFEk/wDER27sUhU9OQRAvY9AKCrebSk6VRgr6L/SJGB12m4ZErV0ACg1B+8
>>> >UKcbdXfJwL/u5nzZERpS7HI=
>>> >=8pvC
>>> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>OSPF mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>

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


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