Subject: [manet] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-manet-03-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:11:34 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-manet-03-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-manet/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this addition:
- Document outlining challenges and best practices for deploying and 
managing MANET networks. 

This is long overdue, and promised for so many years.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:24:19 +0000

Given that the only standards track routing protocol that has been defined in the group is OLSRv2, there was an OLSRv2 management draft produced (I was not an author). It was blocked from proceeding by the then AD (I forget which one).

So I think the suggestion that promises were made (and implicitly, that they were broken) is rather unfair, at least to those authors (two of the OLSRv2 author team). There wasn't even the suggestion that the document evolve to something else, just blocked.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer
BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Laboratories
__________________________________________________________________________

T:  +44 (0)1245 242194  |  E: [email-masked]

BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
www.baesystems.com/ai
BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited
Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451
Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP

-----Original Message-----
From: manet [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: 30 June 2016 08:12
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-manet-03-07: (with COMMENT)

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

*** WARNING ***
EXTERNAL EMAIL -- This message originates from outside our organization.

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Thank you for this addition:
- Document outlining challenges and best practices for deploying and managing MANET networks. 

Regards, Benoit

_______________________________________________
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: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:20:42 -0700

I agree with Christopher that this is an unfair statement. We
delivered what was promised, but Benoit had a much wider document in
mind, despite the fact that no other standard routing protocols have
been developed in this WG. I am not sure how to produce a document
that describes to how manage MANETs in general for standard protocols
that don't even exist.
So I also don't know how this item in the charter will be addressed.
And who will write that document? I can't speak for the other
co-author of the management draft we have written (and which was
killed by AD), but I have no interest in writing a new draft that
addresses best practices for hypothetical, not existing routing
standards in MANETs. We can resubmit our draft explaining best
practices for how to manage OLSRv2 networks if requested by the AD,
since that is what this WG knows how to do.

Regards
Ulrich

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:23:50 +0000

On 6/30/16, 5:24 AM, "manet on behalf of Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Christopher:

Hi!

>Given that the only standards track routing protocol that has been
>defined in the group is OLSRv2, there was an OLSRv2 management draft
>produced (I was not an author). It was blocked from proceeding by the
>then AD (I forget which one).

The document wasn't blocked, I declared it "Dead" -- which basically means
that even though publication was requested the IESG is no longer tracking
it.

>So I think the suggestion that promises were made (and implicitly, that
>they were broken) is rather unfair, at least to those authors (two of the
>OLSRv2 author team). There wasn't even the suggestion that the document
>evolve to something else, just blocked.

If anyone else is interested, take a look at the history of the document,
which includes a note about the reasoning at the time:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapsho
t/history/

Alvaro.

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:06:12 +0000

On 6/30/16, 11:20 AM, "manet on behalf of Ulrich Herberg"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Ulrich:

Hi!

>I am not sure how to produce a document

Please note that the charter item says: "Document outlining challenges and
best practices for deploying and
managing MANET networks."

It doesn't say anything about a network using protocol A or protocol B.
You and I (and the rest of the WG of course) know that the protocols
developed in this WG are not the only manet protocols that exist -- in
fact, the protocols discussed in the WG are not the only protocols that
exist.  And a routing protocol is not the only part that needs management
in a network.  To be clear, the item is not about managing OLSRv2 in a
network (or any other protocol).

MANET networks are not fully understood outside this WG, which sometimes
results in improper (or even unrealistic) expectations of what is
required/possible.  This document gives the WG the opportunity to clearly
spell out the "challenges and best practices".  Even though the WG is
inside the routing area and generally focuses on routing protocols, it is
clearly the one place where people with deployment and management of MANET
networks work -- which is why it is chartered with this work.

I am sure that the WG will benefit from the experience of deploying
OLSRv2, which obviously should be taken into consideration.  However, the
intent goes beyond a single protocol...

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:22:06 +0000

Sorry, I'm sure there is a subtlety in being declared dead rather than blocked, but I don't know what it is. But as I said, I wasn't an author, so wasn't involved in any detailed discussions over why it died.

-----Original Message-----
From: manet [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: 30 June 2016 16:24
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Benoit Claise (bclaise)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-manet-03-07: (with COMMENT)

*** WARNING ***

Christopher:

Hi!

>then AD (I forget which one).

The document wasn't blocked, I declared it "Dead" -- which basically means that even though publication was requested the IESG is no longer tracking it.

>evolve to something else, just blocked.

If anyone else is interested, take a look at the history of the document, which includes a note about the reasoning at the time:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapsho
t/history/

Alvaro.

---

From: Justin Dean <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:45:50 -0400

There is value in providing a document which can help explain to the wider
IETF what MANET is and can and can't do.  What the limitations are and
possible gaps in technologies that may possibly be.  We have previously
produced two different management documents both of which didn't come to
fruition.  I think something of a mixture of the two as well as details
regarding HOW people have deployed and managed these networks and what are
the limitations/advantages/disadvantages in those deployments.  Parts of
the OLSRv2 management draft can be taken as concrete example use cases
using the only standard MANET protocol but there are properties of a MANET
that are independent of the protocol: interment connectivity, address
management, transit issues, protocol management, non-typical "link"
properties, etc.  We should be able to address what these challenges are
and how we (those that have deployed MANET networks) have overcome those
challenges.

I think this is an opportunity and we have most of the pieces and all of
the right people already.

Justin

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]
> wrote:

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:00:19 +0200

> On 30 Jun 2016, at 18:22, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I am an author of this document. I remember the process of it being written, from its inception in discussion w/ the AD who requested it, and until it was declared dead by another AD -- thus preventing (or, blocking) the IESG from discussing it.

I believe that the history and the reasons, as have been presented in this discussion, are, at best, *very* partial.

You wrote:

> "So I think the suggestion that promises were made (and implicitly, that
> OLSRv2 author team). "

As one of the authors, I do indeed find that suggestion to be both unfair and offensive.

Thomas