Certainly, Margaret... ... but then you have to differentiate the capability of any new proposed protocol from what current IETF protocols already do to get that work chartered.
We are having an interesting chat on MANET and ROLL where the differences (and core similarities) between BABEL and RPL are elaborated. For all I 've seen so far both protocols employ the same basic methods, and yield the same capabilities though RPL is a lot more versatile - and a lot less understood by the general community- outside LLNs. Though the discussion is still ongoing and we didn't reach any conclusion yet, we are now at the gory details and the fundamentals are clearly the same. I 'll note that RPL already addresses the problems the Margaret listed in Dallas, in with a proposed standard doc. The shortest time to Homenet is probably to explain how to use RPL at home, and that probably requires only a guideline informational document... Cheers, Pascal Le 3 avr. 2015 à 00:20, Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : I think we could come closer to this by forming a Babel-specific WG that is chartered to take the current Babel documents as a starting point and only change them by consensus of the WG to meet IETF standards-track requirements and fix any technical holes, than we will if we form a more generic WG. if we start a generic DVRP WG, then we are likely to have multiple candidate specs, and people will be looking to combine specs by compromising and merging the features of different specifications into a single document, so that there will be one document with enough followers to gain consensus. I suspect that what emerges from that sort of process might not be recognizably Babel. Margaret On Apr 2, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Juliusz, On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > As I said in the meeting, my concern is not because of the process > requirements - but because of the experience and improvements found during > the standardization and interoperability process. This makes sense, and I'm quite open to discussing that in Prague. However, I'd like to attract your attention on one set of data: - OSPFv2 is 244 pages, OSPFv3 adds 92 pages; - OLSRv2 is 144+60+14 = 218 pages (including dependencies); - RPL is 157 pages, and it's badly underspecified (grep for "implementation" and try not to cry). On the other hand - Babel 45+10 = 55 pages (including the extension mechanism). Perhaps you are familiar with the old joke "I'm sorry this is so long. I didn't have time to make it shorter." ? The current version of Babel is version 2. It has been much simplified since versions 0 and 1 -- there's almost nothing left to remove from this protocol. With one minor exception, all of the mechanisms in RFC 6126 are used by the implementation, and are necessary for correctness. In the light of the above figures -- can I trust an IETF working group to understand that a huge amount of effort has been put into removing mechanisms from this protocol, and to respect that work? Yes, I think that the requirement for minimal mechanisms and a simple easy to implement and troubleshoot protocol can be clearly expressed. How well the WG handles this depends in part on the WG chairs and how strongly the participants are reminded of that requirement and how stringently the need for truly active consensus is focused on. Regards, Alia -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
