Comments inline

Sent from my iPhone

From: Richard Ogier [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:17 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document

John,

A few years ago, we had three drafts dealing with the same problem of 
OSPF-MANET, and now we have three Experimental RFCs providing different 
solutions to this problem.  All of these RFCs can be applied just as easily to 
solve the special case of a single-hop broadcast network.  If we want to choose 
one of these solutions over the other two, there needs to be a reason and a 
formal decision, which I have not seen.  One nice thing about having two drafts 
showing how both OSPF-OR and OSPF-MDR can be applied to single-hop broadcast 
networks, is that it will help people to understand and compare these different 
solutions.

JD:  That is not the statement you made in your email.  You said if one became 
a working group draft the other should also.  That is not your prerogative.

Assuming OSPF-MDR is at least as good a solution as OSPF-OR in solving this 
problem, which I believe, then I don't think it is presumptuous to think it is 
fair to give both solutions an equal chance

JD:  Why?  Years of this stuff has yet to show one protocol to have a 
demonstrable superiority over any other.

  But it is true that people will need to read both drafts before they can come 
to that same conclusion.  Therefore, my point is to let people know there will 
soon be another draft describing how another OSPF-MANET extension can be 
applied to this case.

JD:   Again, that is not what you said.  And it isn't clear to me that the 
world needs yet another protocol choice.


Thanks,
Richard

John E Drake wrote:

Richard,



Don't you think you are being a bit presumptuous?  I think this decision is the 
prerogative of the working group and I don't necessarily think 'fairness' has 
anything to do with it.  Further, having multiple drafts in a given subject 
area is generally considered a bad idea.



Thanks,



John



Sent from my iPhone







-----Original Message-----

From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of

Richard Ogier

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:08 AM

To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG

Document



Note that I plan to submit an analogous draft that describes how

OSPF-MDR (RFC 5614) can be applied to single-hop broadcast networks.

If

draft-retana-ospf-manet-single-hop is accepted as a WG document, then

it

would also be fair to accept the analogous draft for OSPF-MDR as a WG

document.



Regards,

Richard

_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf






_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Reply via email to