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

Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 14 November 2006 01:01 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjmg5-00053b-8L; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:29 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjmg3-00050q-W7 for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:28 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjmfz-00080x-Gk for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:27 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2006 17:01:22 -0800
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAE11M8L002756; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:22 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kAE11MYJ006082; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:22 -0500
Received: from [10.82.208.5] ([10.82.208.5]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:21 -0500
Message-ID: <45591561.8060101@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:21 -0500
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended
References: <45587A54.1090309@cisco.com> <45589EAA.6030305@earthlink.net> <4558BB03.8090501@cisco.com> <4558C236.4040709@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <4558C236.4040709@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2006 01:01:21.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[66519DC0:01C70788]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4145; t=1163466082; x=1164330082; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=acee@cisco.com; z=From:=20Acee=20Lindem=20<acee@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20IETF=2067=20OSPF=20WG=20Meeting=20minutes=20 -=20Correct=20file=20appended |Sender:=20 |To:=20Richard=20Ogier=20<ogier@earthlink.net>; bh=i5PsgGT4oD3oxkQZ7TtpVL3Mb70fyqOErShLMSwSSXk=; b=jSWRz/FRkhruSUuv6So4goPhUz2u6NCE0xtEa/HUN9RPHxM3Zld5kRS3dU0VEYVquVwnjyKH henCixSXlWSc6gJevQHm5YPDazHKm9Ksw4DesSLePA3XJAZoDiZwH+OL;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=acee@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9a2be21919e71dc6faef12b370c4ecf5
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

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


>
> Richard
>
>
> Acee Lindem wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>> I think we agreed upon a process to move along and we should
>> continue to hold all the drafts to the same experimental publication
>> criteria. I guess the point was that we should not limit the number to
>> 2 if we're going to publish more than 1. Without injecting too much 
>> judgment
>> on the MPR draft's maturity, did everyone at the meeting hear the
>> same message?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> Richard Ogier wrote:
>>
>>>>      Acee: Show hands on what should be done:
>>>>            - Quit working on OSPF MANET: none
>>>>            - Continue to drive to consensus: none
>>>>            - Refine drafts and publish as experimental: 2/3's of 
>>>> people
>>>>              in room. To be validated on list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Acee,
>>>
>>> Correct me if I am wrong, but since the latest version of INRIA's
>>> draft was available only last week, and since previous versions did
>>> not fully specify the protocol (as pointed out by Phil Spagnolo in
>>> his 9/28/06 post to the ospf-manet list), it has not yet been decided
>>> that INRIA's draft will be published as experimental.
>>>
>>> Moreover, since INRIA has not participated in the GTNetS simulation
>>> comparison that Boeing has been conducting for the last two
>>> years, in which the MDR draft has been compared to Cisco's
>>> OR/SP drafts (results can be found at Boeing's OSPF-MANET website
>>> http://hipserver.mct.phantomworks.org/ietf/ospf/ ),
>>> it is only fair that we should do such a comparison with INRIA's draft
>>> before deciding to publish it as experimental.
>>>
>>> In fact, that has been the plan since the Dallas IETF meeting in March,
>>> and Philippe agreed to this in his message of 4/5/06:
>>>
>>> Philippe Jacquet wrote on 4/5/06:
>>> > Yes it would be great to synchronize our efforts on GTNet.
>>> > Let's see how to proceed.
>>>
>>> Now, 7 months later, INRIA has implemented their solution in GTNetS,
>>> so the next step would be for Boeing to work with INRIA to make
>>> sure the code is debugged and implemented in a manner that allows
>>> a fair comparison, just as Boeing has done with the OR/SP and
>>> MDR solutions over the last two years.  Hopefully, this work can
>>> be completed by the next IETF meeting.
>>>
>>> I think it is reasonable and fair to require such a comparison
>>> to be done before INRIA's draft is accepted, especially
>>> since they promised to synchronize efforts 7 months ago.
>>> Let me know if you agree or disagree.
>>> IMO, to give INRIA a free pass and avoid such a comparison
>>> would be unfair to those of us who worked hard for the last two
>>> years on the GTNetS simulation effort.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>
>>
>

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