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

Acee Lindem <> Tue, 14 November 2006 01:01 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjmg5-00053b-8L; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:29 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjmg3-00050q-W7 for; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:28 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjmfz-00080x-Gk for; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:27 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2006 17:01:22 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAE11M8L002756; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:22 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kAE11MYJ006082; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:22 -0500
Received: from [] ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:21 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:01:21 -0500
From: Acee Lindem <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Ogier <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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;;; z=From:=20Acee=20Lindem=20<> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20IETF=2067=20OSPF=20WG=20Meeting=20minutes=20 -=20Correct=20file=20appended |Sender:=20 |To:=20Richard=20Ogier=20<>; bh=i5PsgGT4oD3oxkQZ7TtpVL3Mb70fyqOErShLMSwSSXk=; b=jSWRz/FRkhruSUuv6So4goPhUz2u6NCE0xtEa/HUN9RPHxM3Zld5kRS3dU0VEYVquVwnjyKH henCixSXlWSc6gJevQHm5YPDazHKm9Ksw4DesSLePA3XJAZoDiZwH+OL;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2;; dkim=pass (s ig from verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9a2be21919e71dc6faef12b370c4ecf5
Cc: OSPF List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

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.

> 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
>>> ),
>>> 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