Hello folks,
I am crushed. I can see the problem of course, but going Experimental
is a terrible wrong for this protocol.
I have tried to offer resolutions for almost all of the issues that
Justin has raised, often without engendering any discussion or
conclusion. I wish that could be different. I sometimes wonder how I
could have reformulated my discussions in a better way to have achieved
clear resolution. I don't think that my observations have been
individually too verbose. Maybe there have been too many of them per email.
Please let me know if there is something I should be doing. In the
meantime I have to figure out if there is any possibility of getting
this serious wrong righted in the future. Right now I am not optimistic.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 4/19/2016 10:19 AM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
Vicky,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm inclined to agree with Lotte. We have all put a lot of effort
into this draft and it would be a shame for it to be "disposed
of"!! Experimental sounds like the best way to me.
Stan, how long would the last call period be, and what do you mean
by "specific criteria" coming out of it?
This is evolving slightly, as positions harden. What I meant at the time by "specific criteria" is that there would be a list of items, going into WGLC, where we could all understand whether or not the doc would be accepted (for example, no "critical" issues, where "critical" is defined as "it won't work', or "it loops", etc.). The actual list of items would have been (somewhat) negotiable, but needed to be stated up front.
What that has evolved to (from Alvaro) is "Justin is the sole arbiter of whether the WGLC was successful, and publication can be requested, or if the document should be released by the WG" Justin has also taken a harder line on making the draft experimental (his last email to Alvaro and myself contained the sentence "First I'd like to move the draft to experimental and last call it for 2 weeks starting this Wednesday."
Alvaro *has agreed* that a re-chartering discussion can take place while AODVv2 is in WGLC. And just to be clear - Alvaro would consider a WG request to publish AODVv2 as the draft being "disposed of"... ;-) He wants it off of the WG's plate, one way or the other.
All things considered, I'm good with moving the doc to Experimental. The *only* other options look like (a) a "suicide" WGLC on Standards Track, that won't have a snowball's chance in hell of clearing, followed by releasing the document back to the authors, or (b) just releasing the doc back to the authors. If released, we (the authors) are free to pursue an AD-sponsored draft, if we so desire. An AD-sponsored submission is unlikely to be Standards Track.
Regards,
Stan
Lotte, let us know if we can help at all?
Kind regards,
Vicky.
Hi Stan, hi all,
Am 19.04.2016 um 17:30 schrieb Stan Ratliff
<ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>>:
Lotte,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Lotte
Steenbrink<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>wrote:
Hi all,
> Am 19.04.2016 um 02:49 schrieb Stan Ratliff
<ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>>:
>
> Hello AODVv2 authors/editors:
>
> OK, I can finally give some more details about the future
of the draft. Long story short:
>
> 1. Alvaro has given Justin and i a 6-week window to
re-charter the WG, or he's going to shut it down.
> 2. His current thinking is that we (the chairs) CANNOT
proceed with the re-charter unless/until AODVv2 is "disposed
of". Disposed of means one of (a) rejecting the doc,
releasing it to the authors to pursue as an AD-sponsored
draft if they so desire. (b) Making the draft Experimental
instead of standards track, which lowers the bar, and issuing
WGLC in that mode,or (c) a *SUCCESSFUL* WGLC on Standards Track.
> 3. I've been in discussion with Justin. His current
thinking is that we should WGLC the doc, no later than 4/20
(Wednesday). It's something of an open question whether to
WGLC the doc as Standards Track, or Experimental.
> 4. There's another open question as to whether Alvaro will
allow us to start re-charter work while the WGLC is in
progress. If his response is "no", *IT WILL CHANGE THE
CALCULUS*. The calculus *WILL* head towards releasing the
document - at this point, it's either AODVv2, or the whole
MANET WG.
> 5. If the WGLC is called, there will be specific criteria
coming out of the WGLC, which will determine the fate of the
doc. If there is a "no consensus" coming out of WGLC, I'd
expect the document to be released back to the authors.
>
> I need your inputs on the notion of making the draft
Experimental. It may well save all of the work - as Justin
stated, the "experiment" would be to "get the protocol out
into the public domain, to see if there is a significant
desire to adopt, and maybe to standardize in the future.“
Honestly? I’m not against it. Like Stan, my patience is just
about gone and I want to get this out of the door.
Additionally, I'd be pretty effing angry if multiple years of
hard work went down the drain because we decided to be
stubborn and refuse to publish AODVv2 as anything but
Standards Track.
The way I see it, AODVv2 is going to make standards track
only with a lot of good will (and there doesn’t seem to be
much left of that in the WG):
- Even though two independent, interoperable implementations
apparently aren’t a requirement anymore, the one we do have
was written for a bachelor’s thesis and is neither feature
complete nor currently up to date. (DYMO on TinyOS[1] doesn’t
count, it's 8 years old.)
- There are no records of „real world“ experience with
AODVv2. I don’t know of any AODVv2 deployments on actual
hardware in a real/realistic environment (arranging a few
nodes on a lab table doesn’t count). Simulations that do
exist are several years old (and/or using AODV, not v2), and
even if they weren't, I wouldn’t count them as hard evidence
and I doubt the IETF will. Thomas took a stab at this with
his “Can you tell us more about metrics used in real AODVv2
deployments, wink wink” comments, and I don’t fault him for
that. If I were in his position, with his agenda (and maybe
also the grudge to match ;) ), I’d try to make that point as
clear as I could.
The only thing that inspires confidence for me right now is
the Model Checking work done by Ms. Yousefi et al., but that
isn’t very hands-on either, is it.
>
> But at any rate - I've been saying for quite a while that
"we're running out of runway". That time has arrived. There
are no more extensions, no more "just one more IETF". In some
form or fashion, this has been going on for 10 years. It ends
now, or the WG ends.
>
> I need your thoughts, and I need them quickly. We should
also be prepared to post the document no later than 1200
Wednesday, to start a WGLC.
Whoa. Okay. I can do that, but please bear in mind that the
amount of changes we’ve made so far isn’t that big. I’ll go
through this weeks’ E-Mails today and tomorrow and make
appropriate changes where I can (feel free to bombard my
inbox with instructions), but Uni has started and
unfortunately I’ve got some coursework to do too. (Also, bear
in mind that we’ll go into WGLC with the multiplexer issue
still unfixed because Chris hasn’t approved anything yet.
Alternatively, I can just implement what I’ve suggested to
him a month ago and see if somebody complains about my fix.)
I'd say go ahead and put your last suggestion to Chris into the
doc. Let's see if we can wrap-up a version of the doc ready for
review to begin the WGLC. I still want to aim for 1200 Eastern US
time tomorrow for the post. Looks like Justin is leaning towards
Experimental.
I think that’s 6 PM my time, I’ll stock up on caffeine and do what
I can! :)
Regards,
Lotte
Regards,
Stan
Best regards,
Lotte
[1]http://tinyos.stanford.edu/tinyos-wiki/index.php/Tymo#TYMO:_DYMO_on_TinyOS
>
> Regards,
> Stan
