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

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Tue, 14 November 2006 17:36 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gk2Cs-0003rF-9H; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:36:22 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gk2Cq-0003r9-So for ospf@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:36:20 -0500
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.32.69] helo=blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gk2Cn-0006Vl-Iz for ospf@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:36:20 -0500
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [192.42.227.216]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id kAEHa7a1011073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:36:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id kAEHa6rk018055; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:36:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id kAEHa4TH017957; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.55.44]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:36:06 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:36:05 -0800
Message-ID: <77F357662F8BFA4CA7074B0410171B6D01A2F948@XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <45591561.8060101@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended
Thread-Index: AccHiXRFj1b24hcOSE2Ij020tZ8rQwAiUFAQ
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: "Acee Lindem" <acee@cisco.com>, "Richard Ogier" <ogier@earthlink.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2006 17:36:06.0581 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D48EE50:01C70813]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
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

 

> -----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