Subject: [manet] Reactive protocol decision process, for the record thoughts

From: Justin Dean <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:12:58 -0500

Let me start by saying that I think no good will come from this message but
I feel it's important to get my thoughts (which I believe reflect those of
a not insubstantial number of manet participants) out here on the record.
The following message may seem very late to the party and it is. I have
held off for so long because I was hopeful that things could still work
themselves out between between the loadng-dymo camps, clearly this did not
happen. Also, I was hopeful that things would still work themselves out
between loadng-dymo authors, clearly this has not happened. I do feel
getting my thoughts out there on the record is important regardless of how
unproductive it may be which is why I am sending it after much internal
debate.

I am disappointed in the choice of the starting point, dymo over loadng, as
the working group document.  My personal opinion about the decision matters
little in this regard, however what I really most object to is the process
by which this decision was made.

A while back Adrian was brought in to break a deadlock after the last IETF
to facilitate a productive way forward (I did not and still don't envy his
job in this regard). He posted [17 Dec] to the list asking people to reply
to three options for a way forward: 1. Remove reactive protocol from the
charter; 2. Have the AD select one of the documents (other unlikely to be
published); 3. Work on both as experimental.  For the record I did not
reply as I thought these options weren't the only options.  Also quote from
that email "This is not a vote, but I am taking the mood of the working
group in order to inform my decision."  Later [14 Jan] it seems to me that
it very much was used as a vote when a single document was selected.

The rational for selection of one document over the other has been entirely
lacking. There have been arguments from both sides on why one document is
better than the other.  To me those arguments are not equally valid but I
can see how they could be considered equal to to some.  If they were equal
or near enough then a coin flip or some other such random method of
choosing would be appropriate.  As it happened we were handed a decision,
one which (to me) went one step further than what I believed to be a false
representation of the options to begin with:  deciding that the wg would
proceed with versus having an AD picking one of the documents. I had
expected some limited time/discussion to allow manet members to put forth
their arguments/rational on which document should be selected.
Unfortunately, this was not the case.

This message is not intended to roll back time or assign blame.  It very
much seems to me that nearly everyone involved is doing the best they can
with what they have.  I just wanted my thoughts on the process recorded now
before it was entirely too late to do so.

Justin Dean

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:11:17 +0100

On 02/15/2013 02:12 AM, Justin Dean wrote:
> much seems to me that nearly everyone involved is doing the best they
> can with what they have.  I just wanted my thoughts on the process
> recorded now before it was entirely too late to do so.

Thank you Justin for speaking out loud what quite a few participants of 
this list have thought since the decision.

Henning Rogge
-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:24:23 +0100

Hi Justin,

The IETF WGs is all about participating in its work progress, and to
encourage progress with more participation. I thank you for your
input, but I think also that all MANET participants have to be involve
in any item in the MANET WG, we should not let dymo-load camp or
min-groups make decisions for our IETF group. I recommend we always
make our input related to our work, we don't let mini-group decide for
us.

I don't think that direction of AD was taken by votes as you assumed,
IMO it was taken after relating to the IETF rules and way of progress,
voting is not allowed as I understand, however, the AD can explain to
you.

My thoughts were always on the list, and some may think that I am
sending many input but I disagree. I think the best way/direction is
what was suggested by AD for progress. To update the WG DYMO draft and
take from LOADng into dymo-25 to be used in the new reactive protocol.

I suggest that the new team (or camp as you describe) to author the
new reactive protocol to be the ones that were participating on the
list for the MANET reactive protocol ( prefered to have LOADng authors
if available, but if not others who participated and interetsed).

AB
++

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:45:00 -0800

Justin,

I very much agree with you, Justin. One point I would like to add is
that the WG will now spend a lot of time making the new AODVv2
compatible with LOADng (which is claimed in the current DYMO draft);
that is, in my opinion, a wasted effort since the LOADng draft is per
definition 100% compatible with LOADng (had that been the starting
point).
Ignoring a document that has multiple interoperable implementations,
deployments, MIB document, as well a support from at least a dozen
MANET participants (not only LOADng authors) without giving rational
was a disappointment for me.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Feb 14, 2013, at 17:12, Justin Dean <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Let me start by saying that I think no good will come from this message but I feel it's important to get my thoughts (which I believe reflect those of a not insubstantial number of manet participants) out here on the record.  The following message may seem very late to the party and it is. I have held off for so long because I was hopeful that things could still work themselves out between between the loadng-dymo camps, clearly this did not happen. Also, I was hopeful that things would still work themselves out between loadng-dymo authors, clearly this has not happened. I do feel getting my thoughts out there on the record is important regardless of how unproductive it may be which is why I am sending it after much internal debate.
>
> I am disappointed in the choice of the starting point, dymo over loadng, as the working group document.  My personal opinion about the decision matters little in this regard, however what I really most object to is the process by which this decision was made.
>
> A while back Adrian was brought in to break a deadlock after the last IETF to facilitate a productive way forward (I did not and still don't envy his job in this regard). He posted [17 Dec] to the list asking people to reply to three options for a way forward: 1. Remove reactive protocol from the charter; 2. Have the AD select one of the documents (other unlikely to be published); 3. Work on both as experimental.  For the record I did not reply as I thought these options weren't the only options.  Also quote from that email "This is not a vote, but I am taking the mood of the working group in order to inform my decision."  Later [14 Jan] it seems to me that it very much was used as a vote when a single document was selected.
>
> The rational for selection of one document over the other has been entirely lacking. There have been arguments from both sides on why one document is better than the other.  To me those arguments are not equally valid but I can see how they could be considered equal to to some.  If they were equal or near enough then a coin flip or some other such random method of choosing would be appropriate.  As it happened we were handed a decision, one which (to me) went one step further than what I believed to be a false representation of the options to begin with:  deciding that the wg would proceed with versus having an AD picking one of the documents. I had expected some limited time/discussion to allow manet members to put forth their arguments/rational on which document should be selected. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
>
> This message is not intended to roll back time or assign blame.  It very much seems to me that nearly everyone involved is doing the best they can with what they have.  I just wanted my thoughts on the process recorded now before it was entirely too late to do so.
>
> Justin Dean
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:16:24 +0100

> was a disappointment for me.

My understanding to the rationale; there was less discussions on the list
related to LOADng, it seems like the draft was done outside IETF and
then brought to the WG without authors replying on list. For the DYMO
there was alot of discussions with replies from authors.

AB

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:41:03 +0100

> there was alot of discussions with replies from authors.

This statement is misleading at best.

I think the only person which SOMETIMES did not get a reply from the
LOADng team were you...

Henning Rogge

-- 
We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingured
long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to
set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:19:08 -0800

Hello Justin,

I can't comment on the process.  But I can comment on the
likelihood that the result will be a quality document for reactive
protocol implementations.

I think you would agree that the WG document has undergone
really major improvement since October.  I am quite sure that the
existing editor team will be responsive to requests for changes to
the (already pretty good) document, as we have been during
recent discussions.  I don't want to rehash the history precdeding
the month of October.  Suffice it to say that the events earlier in
the year were not oriented towards resolving technical issues as
part of the mailing list and face-to-face discussion.

I am very confident that we are making a high-quality specification
that fulfills the charter item of the working group, and I know that
we will continue to be responsive to the technical issues raised by
everyone in the working group.  In particular, as I have stated many
times, I hope to resolve any issues that would impede LOADng
conformance to the specification, but this will have to be a two-way
discussion; your input as a LOADng author is especially welcome.

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.