Hello Lotte,
Yes, the issue is complex. The discussion yesterday explicitly excluded
consideration
of the complexities, stopping with stated resistance to review my
further analysis to
show that Henning's statement of negative future effects on protocol
design was not
well-grounded in the case of AODVv2.
I would not characterize the author team as being in agreement on this,
because we
clearly are not. But honestly I had hoped for at least some discussion
on the matter.
But, again as you have noted, the complexity and the resistance from RFC
5444 is
quite energy sapping. Maybe I have too much energy and too much desire
to avoid
accepting technical declarations that seem inaccurate to me (for reasons
I have
put into the earlier email).
It pains me that Stan finds this insulting. I don't often find that
having the energy
to identify the exact technical nature of disagreements to be insulting
and now I
feel that my effort is irksome to everyone else here. Nasty waters to
navigate.
I'll ponder whether or not to send email to Alvaro. Stan obviously
hates the idea.
I wish we could at least agree on the basis for the decision. From the
teleconference
yesterday, I thought it was "We can't win this". Now the decision may
be "We can't
win this, and we're not going to talk about it".
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 6/9/2015 10:21 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
Hi Charlie,
Am 09.06.2015 um 19:14 schrieb Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
Hello John,
My understanding matches yours. Can you help me to reformulate my proposed email to Alvaro to avoid what irks Stan?
Basically, I am sort-of O.K. with making required business proposals, much like I am sort-of O.K. with voting for the
lesser of two evils. I just want it clearly understood that we are making a business resolution, not a technical
resolution.
You're making it sound like we were (and are) in violent agreement about how to handle this issue, and RFC5444 got in the way of our collective decision. The discussion around this issue was more complex, heterogenous and energy-sapping than that, and so are the opinions among the author group. I believe the wording you choose should reflect this.
Regards,
Lotte
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 6/9/2015 10:00 AM, John Dowdell wrote:
All
Charlie, I understand you feel technical boundaries have been moved somewhat since 5444 was written. I'm ok with that, but...
Personally I took the view I did after deciding we were not going to win this particular battle, based on discussions with Henning. Technically right or wrong doesn't matter, sadly.
What matters to me is winning the war, that is getting to last call in Prague with nods of approval around the room.
So Charlie, this is definitely not personal, but this is business, and we had to make a business call.
Hope that makes sense.
Best regards
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ratliff, Stanley <mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 09/06/2015 17:23
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Regarding the discussion about tagging everyaddress.
Charlie,
Sigh. IMHO, your synopsis is myopic, somewhat self-serving and "cherry-picked", and frankly, insulting.
That said, it *should* go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: You're free to discuss with whomever you choose - Alvaro, Alia, Clausen.... heck, even Jari and/or Abdussalam. Rock and roll. Take your best shot. Then I'll take mine.
Stan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aodvv2-discuss-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:06 PM
> To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Regarding the discussion about tagging every
> address.
>
>
> Hello folks,
>
> These are my understandings:
>
> - The discussion will take too long.
>
> - The technical merit does not matter. Reviewing technical arguments
> takes too long and would not change anyone's mind.
>
> - Henning has said the same thing over and over again and will not change.
>
> - We cannot win this (regardless of technical merit).
>
> So, on this basis, a majority of the AODVv2 author team has decided to cave
> in.
>
> If this is correct, I would like to inform Alvaro of the status of this issue. I
> want to hear his opinion about this.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
