Subject: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design team outbrief (draft slides) posted

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 14:47:43 -0800

I plan to present the following (draft) slides at the OSPF meeting on
Tuesday.  Comments?

http://hipserver.mct.phantomworks.org/ietf/ospf/manet-design-team-ietf-6
4-draft.ppt

_______________________________________________
Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design

---

From: Richard Ogier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:26:39 -0800

>http://hipserver.mct.phantomworks.org/ietf/ospf/manet-design-team-ietf-6
Tom,

I have a few comments on your slides, below. (I also plan to post several
comments on the recent discussion soon.)

This bullet on page 17 of your slides bothers me:

> Emmanuel Baccelli stated that MPR flooding offers better properties 
> than CDS flooding, with at least as good topology reduction 
> capabilities, and better routing stretch performance

Emmanuel may have "stated" such things, but Phil and I clearly pointed
out that some of his statements were incorrect and based on a lack of
understanding of the MDR approach. Therefore, one may say that your
bullet is the truth, but not the whole truth.  You could add something like:
"Phil and Richard pointed out that Emmanuel's statements were not justified
and Emmanuel did not dispute this."  OK, so this may be biased in the
other direction, but I am making a point.

The following bullet is from your last slide:

> To move forward on one approach, first need to make a decision to 
> pursue either source-independent or source-dependent flooding

With recent improvements to the Smart Peering approach, and with
improvements also possible to the MDR approach, it looks like we
need to continue to compare the two approaches (and improvements
of them) for a few more months.
(I will discuss possible improvements to MDR in another email.)
I am not opposed to "moving forward" with *two* approaches,
at least for a few more months, with the understanding that
a decision must be made at some point. This would mean that
the WG would provide comments/suggestions for *both*
approaches, and help to decide which approach to use.
As you mentioned, the accepted approach can borrow techniques
from the other approach if appropriate.

Richard