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

Comments inline

Sent from my iPhone

From: Richard Ogier [mailto:ogier@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:17 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document

John,

A few years ago, we had three drafts dealing with the same problem of OSPF-MANET, and now we have three Experimental RFCs providing different solutions to this problem.  All of these RFCs can be applied just as easily to solve the special case of a single-hop broadcast network.  If we want to choose one of these solutions over the other two, there needs to be a reason and a formal decision, which I have not seen.  One nice thing about having two drafts showing how both OSPF-OR and OSPF-MDR can be applied to single-hop broadcast networks, is that it will help people to understand and compare these different solutions.

JD:  That is not the statement you made in your email.  You said if one became a working group draft the other should also.  That is not your prerogative.

Assuming OSPF-MDR is at least as good a solution as OSPF-OR in solving this problem, which I believe, then I don't think it is presumptuous to think it is fair to give both solutions an equal chance

JD:  Why?  Years of this stuff has yet to show one protocol to have a demonstrable superiority over any other.

  But it is true that people will need to read both drafts before they can come to that same conclusion.  Therefore, my point is to let people know there will soon be another draft describing how another OSPF-MANET extension can be applied to this case.

JD:   Again, that is not what you said.  And it isn't clear to me that the world needs yet another protocol choice.

Thanks,
Richard

John E Drake wrote:

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

Sent from my iPhone

-----Original Message-----

From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of

Richard Ogier

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:08 AM

To: ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>

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

Document

Note that I plan to submit an analogous draft that describes how

OSPF-MDR (RFC 5614) can be applied to single-hop broadcast networks.

If

draft-retana-ospf-manet-single-hop is accepted as a WG document, then

it

would also be fair to accept the analogous draft for OSPF-MDR as a WG

document.

Regards,

Richard

_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list

OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org>

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