[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Unicast v Multicast (was System Integration)

  • From: "Ratliff, Stanley" <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:56:24 +0000

Please do NOT send email to Justin.

I have taken that issue myself.

Stan


From: aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 1:52 PM
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Unicast v Multicast (was System Integration)

Hello Stan,

O.K. I hope you will take a look at my three proposed resolutions. I will
send email to Justin.

Notably, if his comments do not arrive very soon, it falls under the category
of something beyond our control and thus we should not be penalized for that.

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>
[mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:05 PM
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 email
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.
_____________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________

Other related posts: