Subject: [manet] MANET Terminology Update

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:11:56 +0200

Hi All,

I have seen no draft that defines terminology in MANET WG, which I
feel it is a basic RFC that should be in any WG so they agree on
terminology within the group. I understand from my experience in this
WG that the only RFC agreed on is the RFC2501 as a background for
definitions. I want to work on defining terminology which I will
update the draft expired below. Is there any one want to join me in
authoring, (will first finish update comments on RFC2501 which will
post shortly).

draft-ietf-manet-term-01 (Nov 1998)
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-term-01

Please note that documents MAY expire but right knowledge/experience
NEVER expires :)

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:46:37 +0000

Note that
(a) That's a 1998 document. Things can change in 14 years. That includes that the purpose of the document was to aid protocol designers' discussions. We've done that. And we seem to have managed for 14 years without this.
(b) You probably don't have permission to update it. That document has no copyright assignment on it, and back then I think copyright remained with the authors (or possibly their employers, which are likely to have changed in 14 years) at least at ID stage. And if you want it to remain as a WG document you would need the WG to agree you take it over. (And the IETF tools won't accept you doing that either without intervention from WG chairs at least.) You could of course avoid that by going back to author status, but see the earlier part of this point.
(c) Lots of definitions in that draft aren't used in any MANET WG document. For example we have no protocols using clustering. So why do we need to define them?
(d) Experience has shown that several of the definitions in that document are of things that can cause a great deal of unproductive argument. Let's not rehash that.
(e) Protocols such as NHDP and OLSRv2 have included their own definitions where these are needed. And even if it were desirable for these protocols to reference an external document, it's too late.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 28 June 2012 10:12
To: manet
Subject: [manet] MANET Terminology Update

----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

Hi All,

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:57:31 +0200

I think there is an additional option as I am a MANET-WG memebr so I
can write a new draft titled [MANET Protocols Terminology] to the
MANET-WG. So it will seam like an update to the expired, but in the
same time it is a new proposed (informational RFC),
new-file-name-draft-00, and with new authors.

I agree we should avoid unproductive-arguments in any MANET-document.
So we need to work together in a new-draft of MANET-Terminology so we
have new productive-arguments directed to improve new deliverable
documents (e.g. draft authored by MANET editor, and/or most of MANET
WG members).

AB
====

On 6/28/12, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Note that
> (a) That's a 1998 document. Things can change in 14 years. That includes
> that the purpose of the document was to aid protocol designers' discussions.
> We've done that. And we seem to have managed for 14 years without this.
> (b) You probably don't have permission to update it. That document has no
> copyright assignment on it, and back then I think copyright remained with
> the authors (or possibly their employers, which are likely to have changed
> in 14 years) at least at ID stage. And if you want it to remain as a WG
> document you would need the WG to agree you take it over. (And the IETF
> tools won't accept you doing that either without intervention from WG chairs
> at least.) You could of course avoid that by going back to author status,
> but see the earlier part of this point.
> (c) Lots of definitions in that draft aren't used in any MANET WG document.
> For example we have no protocols using clustering. So why do we need to
> define them?
> (d) Experience has shown that several of the definitions in that document
> are of things that can cause a great deal of unproductive argument. Let's
> not rehash that.
> (e) Protocols such as NHDP and OLSRv2 have included their own definitions
> where these are needed. And even if it were desirable for these protocols to
> reference an external document, it's too late.
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:13:19 -0400

Abdussalam, 

> documents (e.g. draft authored by MANET editor, and/or most of MANET

Seems to me that you are somewhat defining an "unproductive argument" as "an argument where anyone disagrees with Abdussalam"…. :-/

As a working group member, I'm going to add my voice to Chris Dearlove's - I fail to see the need for this type of effort. 

Regards,
Stan

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:15:37 -0700

Hello Abdussalam,

That draft brings back a lot of memories.  It was a good start, but
was eventually folded into another draft that, if I remember correctly,
became an RFC.

I remember that the follow-on draft tried to make a distinction
between vertical and horizontal mobility, which is much more about
marketing than actual technology.  I lost that argument and many
more, but overall the document never really seemed to make very
much difference even after its publication.

Regards,
Charlie P.

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:42:44 +0200

Hi Perkins,

Thanks for your help, so I may understand that you don't mind if a I-D
of terminology is to be active in the MANET-WG. I was wondering why
some other WG have a terminology defined shared in documents while
MANET doesn't. I think if we have it will make us more focus group, or
using terms from one resource/document.

My suggestion for a RFC that combines all terms of MANET-WG into one
RFC is reasonable now, because we have RFC5444 and RFC6130 that are
MANET-Packet and MANET-NHDP. I know we have 14 years from the I-D of
terminology but there is no RFC of agreed terminology or refered to by
MANET memebr authors. Furthermore, RFC3626 and RFC3561 define one term
[LINK] differently, I don't like to expand this old problem into
future when we have more documents as RFCs.

Regards
Abdussalam
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:13:35 +0200

I suggest you start a WG on "what is a link". You could dig archives 
and find out it wouldn't bring you somewhere. Anyway: good luck !

Teco

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:39:41 +0200

Dear Teco,

<[Ri] = Reason>

I like doing efforts/works related within MANET-WG and don't like to
do a mistake to open a new WG that is related to MANET just because I
want to produce a RFC (e.g. RFC5889). IMHO, we should be consistent in
our documents within our IETF WG, also we should author documents with
some interaction among our previous RFCs and we have our experience
interaction within our WG and among other IETF-WGs' experiences [R1].
IMHO we should not open another related WG just to avoid some problems
(e.g. autoconfig WG).

 MANET-WG community needs to decide about the Terminology because it
still didn't decide as far I know, and still has arguments among terms
between members (if you ask I can give examples pointed in the list)
[R2]. So my post subject is to find out community decision. Please
note that I have good intentions and good reasons why I wanted an
active  I-D of terminology, and I will do my best to convince the
MANET-WG at least to decide. However, I don't still see your reason
why you don't want it. For me It is not only the reason for definition
of [Link] that was an example for you to understand my argument. My
main motivation was that I wanted to use RFC5444 and RFC6130 in my
I-D, but have problem of their terminology are not consistent with
mine, and if I use my own terminology and in the same time depend on
these RFCs, it may confuse the reader in understanding terms/semantics
[R3]. Please provide me with your reason, because only Chris and
Charlie have gave feedback-reasons.

Overall, some IETF-WGs when they open/start, they define terminology,
purpose-with-requirements, and use-case, to be able to network efforts
and synchronize. Even nodes in MANET may communicate when they have
consistent messages format. Most of our MANET-documents have
dependency plans but lack interaction-terms among them, because of
different terminology used [R4].

In conclusion, due to [R1, R2, R3, R4] I RECOMMEND the
Internet-community takes the subject issue into consideration and make
a sound decision. I propose this in the list and will do same in
meeting 84, and will need to get the decision of this WG clear to
progress in my I-D and others submitted to it. Thanking you,

Best Regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:18:03 +0200

Op 29 jun. 2012, om 11:39 heeft Abdussalam Baryun het volgende geschreven:

> want to produce a RFC (e.g. RFC5889).
Go ahead, publish your I-D.

Teco

> IMHO, we should be consistent in

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:43:09 -0400

Abdussalam,

On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> progress in my I-D and others submitted to it.

I think you *already have* the decision of the WG - can you point to a single response on this email list that has been positive and supports this effort? You've asked the working group about a terminology document. With varying degrees of bluntness (and one case of some well-executed sarcasm), and for varying reasons, the people active on the list have said "No". I haven't seen a single case of anyone saying anything close to  "YES! This would be an important, good thing for the MANET WG to spend time on!" 

So as this point, I'm not sure what else to say, other than to reiterate - I don't think this is a necessary effort; I don't think it will be a fruitful effort; and I personally believe it spends WG cycles where they are not needed.

Regards,
Stan

> Thanking you,

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:47 +0200

I got a response of go ahead, that is enough for me,

AB
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 6/29/12, Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think you *already have* the decision of the WG - can you point to a
> single response on this email list that has been positive and supports this
> effort? You've asked the working group about a terminology document. With
> varying degrees of bluntness (and one case of some well-executed sarcasm),
> and for varying reasons, the people active on the list have said "No". I
> haven't seen a single case of anyone saying anything close to  "YES! This
> would be an important, good thing for the MANET WG to spend time on!"
>
> So as this point, I'm not sure what else to say, other than to reiterate - I
> don't think this is a necessary effort; I don't think it will be a fruitful
> effort; and I personally believe it spends WG cycles where they are not
> needed.
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
>
>> Thanking you,
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Abdussalam Baryun

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:32:07 +0200

> I got a response of go ahead, that is enough for me,
I suggested multiple times to post less and put your energy in publish an I-D, if you want interest of the WG. Then you ask the WG their opinion. In that order.

I hope you get the message now.

Teco.

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:58:30 -0700

Abdussalam,

> want to produce a RFC (e.g. RFC5889).

You are mistaken. MANET WG is in the routing area, AUTOCONF was in the
Internet area. That is a totally different focus, and there were good
reasons to have a separate WG.

> IMHO we should not open another related WG just to avoid some problems

I believe that the RFCs we have published recently in MANET (and the WG
drafts that are about to be sent to the IESG), are consistent in their
terminology. I have not seen any problem of producing solutions because of
misleading terminology, and I therefore believe it would be unnecessary to
spend time on this.

> of [Link] that was an example for you to understand my argument.
>
My
> mine,

Well, how about you change your terminology then to make it consistent with
existing MANET RFCs and WG documents?

> and if I use my own terminology and in the same time depend on

I believe we have a lot of interaction between the different protocols;
they all use the same packet format, several of them use RFC6130. I don't
know what you mean by lack of interaction. And most certainly, I don't see
a problem of terminology.

> progress in my I-D and others submitted to it. Thanking you,

Abdussalam, we spend a lot of cycles on these discussion of yours; I second
Teco and suggest that instead of writing many long emails, you work on the
drafts and propose them to the WG.

Best
Ulrich

---

From: Don Sturek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:59:59 -0700

+1

More (relevant) drafts and less e-mail would work for me!

Don

From:  Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date:  Friday, June 29, 2012 9:58 AM
To:  Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Cc:  manet <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [manet] MANET Terminology Update

Abdussalam,

 

> different terminology used [R4].

I believe we have a lot of interaction between the different protocols; they
all use the same packet format, several of them use RFC6130. I don't know
what you mean by lack of interaction. And most certainly, I don't see a
problem of terminology.

Best
Ulrich

> University of Glamorgan, UK.

_______________________________________________ manet mailing list
[email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:21:08 +0200

I think we need more discussions about the related work(s), and not
discussing about the way one member is doing his Work. Let us focus on
our group-works only and be positive.

AB
++