John,
I agree with Tom. It's not totally obvious which way to choose to go forward
with this.
I think a discussion needs to take place before deciding anything.
This thread may be the start of such a discussion?
Regards,
Emmanuel

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Henderson, Thomas R <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 as-yet-unpublished draft.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
>
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Reply via email to