RE: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:01 PM
> To: Richard Ogier
> Cc: OSPF List
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct 
> file appended
> 
> Hi Richard,
> Richard Ogier wrote:
> > Acee,
> >
> > I am not sure I understand what you mean.  The MDR and OR/SP
> > drafts have already been evaluated exensively via GTNetS
> > simulations.  INRIA's solution has not yet participated
> > in any such evaluation. So if we require all the drafts
> > to participate in the GTNetS evaluation (which was the
> > original plan two years ago), then we *are* holding all
> > drafts to the same experimental publication criteria.
>
> GTNetS Simulation results were presented in San Diego so I believe
> MPRs have been implemented. The code should be made available for
> public inspection and comparison with the other drafts.
> 
> >
> > Or, are you saying that we should give INRIA a free pass
> > to avoid participating in the GTNetS evaluation?
> > I really don't think this would be fair, and therefore
> > seriously doubt that the consensus would agree with this.
>
> I agree.
>
> >
> > I don't think the voting at the meeting clearly distinguished
> > between the two options of accepting 2 versus 3 drafts.
> > This distinction was not made explicit at the meeting.
>
> You are right that the question of 2 or 3 wasn't the primary
> focus of the dialog. While we've agreed to allow for more
> than one experimental draft, I don't think we should lower
> our standards. I don't think anyone who was at the meeting
> would disagree.
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 

Acee,
I agree with all of your above responses.

Tom

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

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