Hello Stan,
I am shortly going to propose another resolution for consideration. It's
probably a good idea to bring it up in Prague if we don't agree. I hope
we can find agreement, and I am working hard to make a proposal that
doesn't incur the same penalty as the multicast proposal.
However, we could still go to Last Call and just lump the issue in along
with the others that will assuredly be raised.
As I mentioned before, the multicast proposal could be made into an
optional behavior for circumstances in which it is warranted. I have
offered to write that text.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 7/1/2015 10:14 AM, Ratliff, Stanley wrote:
Regarding the Multicast vs Unicast issue: If the issue is in stalemate amongst the AODVv2 editorial team, I would feel the need to bring it to the WG’s attention during the Prague meeting for resolution.
As to the Gateway issue: I would appreciate a reminder email to Justin to determine his level of consensus (or lack thereof).
Stan
*From:*aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Charlie Perkins
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:05 PM
*To:* aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Unicast v Multicast (was System Integration)
Hello Stan,
I certainly agree on the need to get the specification out there.
Notably, the issue under discussion was not raised by the WG mailing list. That should mean that the WG would not complain about it as an impediment to Last Call (unless somehow one of the authors did that, which I hope none would do). So this means that the issue should not be considered as blocking Last Call.
Regarding the gateway issue, I have proposed a resolution that is very straightforward and compatible with the current text. I have not heard back from Justin about it. If desirable, I can update the text of the last draft to reflect it.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 7/1/2015 8:54 AM, Ratliff, Stanley wrote:
*_From:_*_aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *John
Dowdell
_
The behaviour here is inside the boundary of things we as a team
are charged with specifying, and thus we need to agree what is
best, before the cut-off deadline.
Spot-on, IMO. I’m going to continue to stay out of this – as far
as I’m concerned, the arguments have been laid out, and the minds
are already set. I’ll just note some things:
1.The draft cutoff is July 6. 5 days (not including today) away.
2.We have 5 days. Only 5 days.
3.See points 1 and 2.
4.AFAIK, this “Unicast vs. Multicast” issue is one of two that
concerns me.
5.The other issue, and I’m not completely sure where we stand on
this, is handling of gateway processing. Specifically, I’m not
sure if Justin has been consulted (and **signed off on**) any
understanding, or assumed conditions for gateway operation (e.g.
that the gateway **must not** also be the default router).
6.What we seek is “rough consensus”. Rough consensus ≠ Unanimity
of opinion. It is possible for 1, or even 2 (depending on
circumstances) members of the team to be “in the rough” on any
given issue.
7.We are in a position where the WG essentially has to accept what
we’ve accomplished, or the spec dies. (Really, it gets sent to
“Experimental Hell”).
8.**IT IS NOT MY INTENT TO OPEN A DISCUSSION ON HISTORY.** Having
said that, I simply state: Our ability to argue positions that are
contrary to active WG participants has basically vanished –
squandered away over the last 10 ½ YEARS.
(draft-ietf-manet-dymo-00 was submitted on January 5, 2005).
9.Referencing points 7 & 8 above - **ARGUING ANY ISSUE TO
STALEMATE WILL RESULT IN THE DEATH OF AODVV2**. We **MUST** make a
decision. I’m prepared to be declared “in the rough” on **any**
decision, but I say again – we **MUST** decide.
10.Please see points 1 and 2 above. Decisions **MUST** be made
with sufficient time remaining to edit the draft.
Stan
_____________________________________________________
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
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________
