IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Wed, 11 May 2011 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
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 02423E08D9 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 2DpJ47louSFe for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048AEE0696 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p4BMxFwd024544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 May 2011 15:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p4BMxFhv025238; Wed, 11 May 2011 17:59:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.111]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p4BMxE23025229 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 11 May 2011 17:59:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.85]) by XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.111]) with mapi; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:59:14 -0700
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: 'John E Drake' <jdrake@juniper.net>, Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:59:13 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document
Thread-Index: AcwP/cBH1M3yrTPRSA+pbB/LgDH97QAGqdfwAAM7tnAAAGpwAAAA6Gkg
Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEED717B7@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <24646CE17826CF4A8DF71F9856C7E65659240FE2F3@GVW1338EXA.americas. hpqcorp.net><4DCAC26F.4030604@earthlink.net><5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331 63A09A87C342@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net><7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEED717B5@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C592@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C592@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
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 22:59:24 -0000

John, some replies are inline below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:11 PM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R; Richard Ogier; ospf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG
> Document
> 
> Tom,
> 
> The primary point of my email was Richard's presumptuousness.
> 

I agree that it may be presumptuous to ask a WG to adopt an as-yet-unpublished draft.  However, I for one would like to understand better the decision that is being taken in adopting an update of RFC 5820 to solve the use case of draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.  Would similar future updates of the other MANET RFCs be precluded by such a decision?  Does this mean that ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01 will not be considered further as a WG document?

Perhaps we could try to clarify whether the WG intention is to update the Experimental RFCs along these lines or rather to work on a single specification for the use case introduced by draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.

> 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.
> 

I understand, but this is one rationale for the experimental track; see for example 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html (Section 3 item 4)

- Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email