Re: [Roll] Review and concerns (was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-02)

["Emmanuel Baccelli" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:52 PM, David E. Culler
<[e-mail]>wrote:

>  Emmanuel,
>    We discussed the list of rows in each of the IETF meetings and
> associated discussions leading up to those.   It sounds like you agree that
> if you have some criteria for limiting the search space the discussion will
> never complete.   That is necessary, according to the charter, to consider
> the space of solutions that might actually solve the problem.  To do any
> analysis there has to be something specific to analyze.  You mention two
> addition WGs that have done relevant work.  Indeed, from the very beginning
> it was stated that Roll should work in conjunction with those groups.  It is
> key another thing to say "this specific protocol as described by this RFC or
> I-D ought to be analyzed in draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-03".
>
>  Here's the NEMO list.  Which are you arguing should be included and why?
>


Sorry to be blunt, but your charter says that DTN and NEMO are to be
reviewed as well as the rest. There is not a word about either of these
"fields" in the draft, why? You need to answer this question. Not me.

Emmanuel






>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support/>
> -03 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support>
>  2004-06-07   RFC 3963 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3963>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models/>
> -06 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models>
>  2006-02-21   RFC 4887 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4887>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues/>
> -07 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues>
>  2007-02-07   RFC 4980 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4980>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-requirements<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements/>
> -06 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements>
>  2006-11-09   RFC 4886 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4886>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement/>
> -03 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement>
>  2006-09-18   RFC 4888 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4888>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis/>
> -03 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis>
>  2006-09-18   RFC 4889 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4889>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-terminology<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-terminology/>
> -06 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-terminology>
>  2006-11-09   RFC 4885 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4885>
>
> There are many topics that as a working group we'd like to move on to once
> this process completes.  Much important work has been done outside IETF
> WGs.  Some of it in the IRTF.  Others in other places.  All the more reason
> to complete this well formed, bounded effort.   Again, I do not hear any
> suggestion that any protocol within the domain of analysis meets the
> criteria.  I do hear that there are protocols or modifications to protocols
> that do or could.  We need to complete the process on this draft so that we
> can move on to consider such enhancements, candidates, or new designs.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Emmanuel Baccelli <emmanuel.baccelli at
> gmail.com <emmanuel.baccelli%20at%20gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM, David E. Culler <culler at
>> eecs.berkeley.edu <culler%20at%20eecs.berkeley.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Some concerns recognize that there are protocols outside the defined
>>> universe that should be considered and that appear to be far better suited
>>> to meeting the criteria than the set of IETF protocols that were considered
>>> - since those protocols were developed without these criteria.  Again, that
>>> suggests that the criteria are a reasonable guide, that they do not appear
>>> to be unobtainable, and that the analysis has provided a suitable guide.
>>>
>>> None of the comments seem to be claiming that there is a solution within
>>> the universe that we were chartered to consider that meets the criteria.
>>>
>>
>
>  Even admitting that the universe you defined is wide enough (a point
> which is actually agued since months), we could conclude to this only if
> this universe (defined in the charter) is covered entirely. Again, it is not
> the case: I have seen nothing said about NEMO or DTN, so reports of
> investigations in these fields need to be included in the draft anyways.
>
>  Second, if we are not going into a long research phase, I am still
> wondering what existing protocols/algorithms, IP compatible or not, are
> being "hinted at" here, which could meet the "dream" criterii that are
> evoked in the draft. Chris Dearlove and other people have asked this
> question many times, and it is yet to be answered.
>
>  Emmanuel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll