John, some replies are inline below. > -----Original Message----- > From: John E Drake [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:11 PM > To: Henderson, Thomas R; Richard Ogier; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG > Document > > Tom, > > The primary point of my email was Richard's presumptuousness. >
I agree that it may be presumptuous to ask a WG to adopt an as-yet-unpublished draft. However, I for one would like to understand better the decision that is being taken in adopting an update of RFC 5820 to solve the use case of draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01. Would similar future updates of the other MANET RFCs be precluded by such a decision? Does this mean that ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01 will not be considered further as a WG document? Perhaps we could try to clarify whether the WG intention is to update the Experimental RFCs along these lines or rather to work on a single specification for the use case introduced by draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01. > The comment about having multiple protocols to do the same thing being > a bad idea was simply a comment in passing. And it is a bad idea - > this was the rationale given by the IETF in taking a position against > multiple OAM protocols for MPLS-TP. > I understand, but this is one rationale for the experimental track; see for example http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html (Section 3 item 4) - Tom _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
