Subject: Re: [manet] A view on packet-BB

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:39:38 +0200

Hi Chris,

I agree and like your statement 'Interesting is not enough, what we
should be doing in an IETF WG is something people want or even need',
however, it should not mean that discussion-list should not include
interests, or motivations, because IMO interests are the most
important thing to start any work in any organisations, yes you or me
may not be interested in something today but some one maybe interested
in it today or tomorrow. However, if we don't remember who mentioned
to include the source routing without knowing how it will be working,
this should not be in our IETF discussion. We should know who is
discussing and who mentions so we can ask him again why you want this
or that, otherwise we have no communication. If this idea was
important I will request the WG secretary to find out who mentioned
the idea of source routing in OLSRv2, so we can see his/her views, so
we can have good discussion in it. I am not interested to know, but I
hope in future we know who put any idea/interest in any manet-draft so
we can question them and the authors in our discussions.

Regarding puting interests in the list I think it is healthy, but
puting interests-without-discussions into drafts is not healthy in
IETF. The one that mentioned source routing to include in some
OLSRv2-draft had an interest and still authors put it through to the
draft without they knowing if relevant. In my post discussion I am not
asking any one to put my interest in any draft, but I am asking the WG
to think about it, and if someone else is interested, then I will open
discussion about that when knowing that person. Therefore, my
interests will still go through to the discussion list, and hope that
others do the same so we can see more discussion, that in future make
better drafts or even more focused drafts.

sorry to reply in long message,

Regards
Abdussalam Baryun,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree with Henning, including on his emphasised point.

With regard to the source routing paragraph in OLSRv2, it appeared for
about one draft, because someone (I don't recall who) said (roughly)
"you've got the information to do source routing, why not mention
that", and so it was added in the non-normative part. (Note that it
was never in the normative part.) Then a draft or so later it was
taken out because actually no one ordered that, and because it's not
quite that simple, you can't source route to attached networks, only
to their gateways. The idea of having to explain an exception to a
mechanism that no one wanted and wasn't normative seemed like a very
bad idea.

"Interesting" is not enough. I could write a long list of interesting
things. What we should be doing in an IETF WG is something people want
(or even need). We also don't want more protocols, we dropped from
four experimental protocols to two standards track deliberately.
Roughly speaking OLSR and AODV won over DSR and TBRPF for a variety of
reasons, but DSR's source routing was a strike against it, not for it.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:49:43 +0000

It's not in the least important to know who made the source routing suggestion. And asking the "WG secretary" isn't a practical idea because first who is that? and second how would he or she know?  The people to ask would be the draft authors - and I'm one of those. If I have the information it's buried in a large pile of emails I have zero interest in looking through.

I'm also afraid that's not the only example of what I'd characterise as muddled thinking in this and previous posts.

However I don't choose to discuss this further, I just wanted to make the point I made in my last posting, which is done.

-- 
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: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 31 May 2012 14:40
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Henning Rogge; manet; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] A view on packet-BB

----------------------! 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 Chris,

Regards
Abdussalam Baryun,

-- 
Christopher Dearlove

********************************************************************
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, 31 May 2012 16:27:24 +0200

Hi All,

Henning> Not sure why it was ever there, because the mechanism to use source
>routing with OLSR was never described in the draft. Feel free to write
>an extension draft OLSRv2-with-sourcerouting.
>Can you state a reason why you think that source routing is interesting for you?
>I know it makes a lot of trouble, but whats the advantage if every OLSR node
>(as an example) has to store the whole topology anyways?

Chris> I agree with Henning, including on his emphasised point.

I noticed that OLSRv2-14 draft was presented at 83 meeting and authors
proposed it for last call because there are no important issues, so
Henning's question still stands: Why someone want source-routing in
OLSRv2? and mine is to authors: Why OLSRv2-author did not discussed
about how it can be possible this protocol to have hop-by-hop routing
and have source-routing techniques before calling for WGLC?  However,
I am happy that OLSRv2-15 has deleted it and now I am about to finish
my comments on the new draft.

> And asking the "WG secretary" isn't a practical idea because
> first who is that? and second how would he or she know?  The people to ask
> would be the draft authors - and I'm one of those. If I have the information
> it's buried in a large pile of emails I have zero interest in looking
> through.

Ok, I don't want to know the person either and don't want to discuss
these buried-issues, but I just replied to comments on my interests of
DSRv2, and would like to go forward to other better discusions,

Best Regards
AB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 5/31/12, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It's not in the least important to know who made the source routing
> suggestion. And asking the "WG secretary" isn't a practical idea because
> first who is that? and second how would he or she know?  The people to ask
> would be the draft authors - and I'm one of those. If I have the information
> it's buried in a large pile of emails I have zero interest in looking
> through.
>
> I'm also afraid that's not the only example of what I'd characterise as
> muddled thinking in this and previous posts.
>
> However I don't choose to discuss this further, I just wanted to make the
> point I made in my last posting, which is done.
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Charlie, and All

I don't mind to have DYMO and AODVv2 without divergence, just from the
protocol name and draft-understanding, DYMO was derived from AODV+DSR,
and from the change of name to AODVv2 it made me think more about the
extending of AODV. Therefore, I may suggest that it is interested to
see DSRv2 ( which I thought new DYMO may take that direction), and was
thinking if the authors of DSR or others in WG are happy to extend
that protocol.

If we can get a new DSRv2 that is able to use RFC5444 or use a
modified format of RFC5444, it will be great. Because if OLSRv2-15 is
now deleting its source-routing option as was included in OLSRv2-14,
and AODVv2 is not doing source routing, then it is interested to have
a routing protocol that is able to source route.

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

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:50:09 -0400

On May 31, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> DSRv2, and would like to go forward to other better discussions,

This "discussion" seems to be going around and around in circles, and is only tangentially related to a document that has cleared WGLC.  If you have an interest in some sort of DSRv2, then I would encourage you to author a draft and propose it to the WG. But please, let this thread end.

Stan

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