On 1/27/2015 8:45 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
Hi Joe On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It's far too early to discuss whether this doc could *become* a useful WG doc; in it's current form, there's simply no hint of that yet. IMO, the authors should take another shot at it, and then we can see if there's really anything useful to pursue here. The current doc does NOT make that case yet. Can you be more specific?
I've tried. If what I've said so far isn't sufficient, then the draft needs substantial revision and we'll see from there.
Again, the onus is on the draft to be clear.
Apparently there is some misunderstanding. There are two parts in this discussion. One part is polemic, another part is non-polemic: (1) the non-polemic part is about the *physical connectivity* that is experienced on networks tackled by MANET, ROLL, 6Lo and a slew of other working groups in this domain. This physical connectivity is pretty well described in the draft, and I think it should be easy to get consensus on that, with minimal changes.
I disagree, and have already explained why that's not true in detail.
(2) the polemic part is about what link model / architecture /solution applies best to such physical connectivity. This discussion, as well as previous discussions in AUTOCONF, show that it is not trivial to agree on something.
If this is just about describing a physical layer, IMO it's not relevant to the IETF. The implications on L3 and above need to be part of this doc, otherwise there's no point in discussing it here.
However: the chances of agreeing on a solution for (2) are significantly lower if (1) has not concluded with a clear documentation of the *beast* to be tamed. This is why a document such as the draft discussed -- which addresses only the *non-polemic* part of the discussion -- would be useful. Do you disagree with the above? If so, why? This is unclear.
The current doc is essentially vacuous regarding new information on wireless subnets. We all already know they are composed of links that vary highly and that the links can be unidirectional.
Please tell us something we haven't known and dealt with for decades. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
