Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC
Hi Richard, I send to the author of an IETF document a message but it was not answered. I beleive that the question from the community was ignored, I hope you understand the importance of community questions. Why does the IETF name its documents RFCs, any one from the community can ask questions even after the RFC is produced, so we SHOULD NOT be stoped to comment on any document and the IETF SHOULD try to answer communities questions, otherwise IETF SHOULD NOT request comments. comments below, On 6/7/13, Richard Ogier og...@earthlink.net wrote: AB, As Joel pointed out, your questions should have been raised during the OSPF WG Last Call, which you did not participate in. You (inappropriately) posted questions on the MANET WG list after the OSPF WGLC was complete, and several people responded, most of them stating that RFC 5444 is not required for this document: Please note that I got a message from IETF post or an AD post in MANET WG, so I responded, and asked the author by their address (it was appropriate/reasonable reaction). I may agree that I should send to the origin WG, which I learn now, but only if that WG is open to questions. I know I don't work in OPSF WG, but that does not mean any one can stop me from commenting or asking questions outside that blocked-WG. My questions were before the IETF last call (which is enough). http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15403.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15406.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15407.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15408.html Although I should not be required to respond to your questions at this point, I thought that within the IETF last call of the I-D, all the community questions and comments are answered as long as the last call did not end. Furthermore, the OPSF WG is blocking me (so no one unsubscribed from the community can comment on the document) from sending my thoughts yesterday even after I subscribed. Thanks for your respond below, AB I will provide a few additional reasons why RFC 5444 and DLEP are not relevant for this document. (These reasons also apply to the parallel document draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or-02.) 1. This draft does not propose a new interface, it only describes how the interface previously specified in RFC 5614 (and RFC 5820 for the other draft) can be configured in the special case of a single-hop MANET. Therefore, your comments should have been directed to RFC 5614 (and RFC 5820). 2. RFCs 5614 and 5820 describe MANET extensions to OSPF, and one of the goals was to minimize changes to OSPF, so we decided to use OSPF packet formats (with minimal changes), rather than MANET packet formats that were designed without OSPF in mind. (This point is also made in the last message listed above.) On the other hand, these are experimental documents, so your questions about using RFC 5444 and DLEP may be valid for future modifications to the proposed MANET extensions of OSPF (both RFCs 5614 and 5820). But they are not valid for draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr or draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or, not only because these two drafts have already completed WG Last Call, but also because they only describe how to configure RFCs 5614 and 5820 for the special case of a single-hop network. Richard On 6/6/13 3:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last reminder). The message [3] proposes using RFC5444 into this I-D, or raise the question of why not using MANET packet format within MANET domains (I need an answer). [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15400.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15412.html [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15418.html The I-D SHOULD not go forward if it still ignores the IETF community questions. Regards AB On 6/5/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks' draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC 5614 (OSPF-MDR) extends OSPF to support mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) by specifying its operation on the new OSPF interface of type MANET. This
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC
On 07/06/2013 09:23, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Thanks for your respond below, AB Thank you Richard and Abdussalam for reaching agreement on this. I regard the issue as now closed. Regards Stewart Bryant (speaking as responsible Area Director)
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC
AB, As Joel pointed out, your questions should have been raised during the OSPF WG Last Call, which you did not participate in. You (inappropriately) posted questions on the MANET WG list after the OSPF WGLC was complete, and several people responded, most of them stating that RFC 5444 is not required for this document: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15403.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15406.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15407.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15408.html Although I should not be required to respond to your questions at this point, I will provide a few additional reasons why RFC 5444 and DLEP are not relevant for this document. (These reasons also apply to the parallel document draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or-02.) 1. This draft does not propose a new interface, it only describes how the interface previously specified in RFC 5614 (and RFC 5820 for the other draft) can be configured in the special case of a single-hop MANET. Therefore, your comments should have been directed to RFC 5614 (and RFC 5820). 2. RFCs 5614 and 5820 describe MANET extensions to OSPF, and one of the goals was to minimize changes to OSPF, so we decided to use OSPF packet formats (with minimal changes), rather than MANET packet formats that were designed without OSPF in mind. (This point is also made in the last message listed above.) On the other hand, these are experimental documents, so your questions about using RFC 5444 and DLEP may be valid for future modifications to the proposed MANET extensions of OSPF (both RFCs 5614 and 5820). But they are not valid for draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr or draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or, not only because these two drafts have already completed WG Last Call, but also because they only describe how to configure RFCs 5614 and 5820 for the special case of a single-hop network. Richard On 6/6/13 3:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last reminder). The message [3] proposes using RFC5444 into this I-D, or raise the question of why not using MANET packet format within MANET domains (I need an answer). [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15400.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15412.html [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15418.html The I-D SHOULD not go forward if it still ignores the IETF community questions. Regards AB On 6/5/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks' draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC 5614 (OSPF-MDR) extends OSPF to support mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) by specifying its operation on the new OSPF interface of type MANET. This document describes the use of OSPF-MDR in a single-hop broadcast network, which is a special case of a MANET in which each router is a (one-hop) neighbor of each other router. Unlike an OSPF broadcast interface, such an interface can have a different cost associated with each neighbor. The document includes configuration recommendations and simplified mechanisms that can be used in single-hop broadcast networks. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC
I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last reminder). The message [3] proposes using RFC5444 into this I-D, or raise the question of why not using MANET packet format within MANET domains (I need an answer). [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15400.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15412.html [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15418.html The I-D SHOULD not go forward if it still ignores the IETF community questions. Regards AB On 6/5/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks' draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC 5614 (OSPF-MDR) extends OSPF to support mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) by specifying its operation on the new OSPF interface of type MANET. This document describes the use of OSPF-MDR in a single-hop broadcast network, which is a special case of a MANET in which each router is a (one-hop) neighbor of each other router. Unlike an OSPF broadcast interface, such an interface can have a different cost associated with each neighbor. The document includes configuration recommendations and simplified mechanisms that can be used in single-hop broadcast networks. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC
On 6/6/13 3:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last reminder). The message [3] proposes using RFC5444 into this I-D, or raise the question of why not using MANET packet format within MANET domains (I need an answer). [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15400.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15412.html [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15418.html The I-D SHOULD not go forward if it still ignores the IETF community questions. This sounds like an appeal of the working group consensus, not a last call comment. If you have concerns with the WGLC those are raised first with the chairs, then with responsible AD, and then with the IESG as a whole. I would observe that consensus does not require universal agreement. If you're in the rough from the vantage point of others, it's worth considering whether political capital, goodwill and the forebearance of your peers are best expended on this point. Regards AB On 6/5/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks' draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC 5614 (OSPF-MDR) extends OSPF to support mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) by specifying its operation on the new OSPF interface of type MANET. This document describes the use of OSPF-MDR in a single-hop broadcast network, which is a special case of a MANET in which each router is a (one-hop) neighbor of each other router. Unlike an OSPF broadcast interface, such an interface can have a different cost associated with each neighbor. The document includes configuration recommendations and simplified mechanisms that can be used in single-hop broadcast networks. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC
AB, As Joel pointed out, your questions should have been raised during the OSPF WG Last Call, which you did not participate in. You (inappropriately) posted questions on the MANET WG list after the OSPF WGLC was complete, and several people responded, most of them stating that RFC 5444 is not required for this document: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15403.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15406.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15407.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15408.html Although I should not be required to respond to your questions at this point, I will provide a few additional reasons why RFC 5444 and DLEP are not relevant for this document. (These reasons also apply to the parallel document draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or-02.) 1. This draft does not propose a new interface, it only describes how the interface previously specified in RFC 5614 (and RFC 5820 for the other draft) can be configured in the special case of a single-hop MANET. Therefore, your comments should have been directed to RFC 5614 (and RFC 5820). 2. RFCs 5614 and 5820 describe MANET extensions to OSPF, and one of the goals was to minimize changes to OSPF, so we decided to use OSPF packet formats (with minimal changes), rather than MANET packet formats that were designed without OSPF in mind. (This point is also made in the last message listed above.) On the other hand, these are experimental documents, so your questions about using RFC 5444 and DLEP may be valid for future modifications to the proposed MANET extensions of OSPF (both RFCs 5614 and 5820). But they are not valid for draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr or draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or, not only because these two drafts have already completed WGLC, but also because they only describe how to configure RFCs 5614 and 5820 for the special case of a single-hop network. Richard On 6/6/13 3:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last reminder). The message [3] proposes using RFC5444 into this I-D, or raise the question of why not using MANET packet format within MANET domains (I need an answer). [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15400.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15412.html [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15418.html The I-D SHOULD not go forward if it still ignores the IETF community questions. Regards AB On 6/5/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.orgwrote: The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks' draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03.txt as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.orgmailing lists by 2013-06-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.orginstead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC 5614 (OSPF-MDR) extends OSPF to support mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) by specifying its operation on the new OSPF interface of type MANET. This document describes the use of OSPF-MDR in a single-hop broadcast network, which is a special case of a MANET in which each router is a (one-hop) neighbor of each other router. Unlike an OSPF broadcast interface, such an interface can have a different cost associated with each neighbor. The document includes configuration recommendations and simplified mechanisms that can be used in single-hop broadcast networks. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
