Pekka Savola | 5 Oct 12:17 2005
Picon

Conclusion: Joe vs draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-04.txt

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
>> which changes you'd like to see so I'll just have to ask "send text" and
>> I'll check it out.
>
> IMO, the major doc focus issues are more important and need to be
> resolved before it would be useful to contribute text, since the latter
> assumes that such pointwise patches would be productive, and I don't yet
> see that.

Ok, I think your main argument against the current structure is:

   Documenting existing practice and pointing out the violation as a
   side-issue isn't acceptable to me because it ends up
   meaning that this doc is a snapshot of current practice, which I
   don't think is appropriate for an RFC. IMO, the RFC should make a
   statement that this is either OK and the spec should be changed or
   that it's not OK and the implementations should be fixed.

I do not think this is an appropriate as a blocking reason for a 
document, but everyone is entitles to an opinion. If that didn't 
capture your objection well enough, I'd encourage you to write a short 
summary, so that other folks can judge by themselves.

As for the document, I'm shipping off -05 with the small mods I've 
made based on your (and others') input and we'll see how it turns out.

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
(Continue reading)

Joe Touch | 5 Oct 20:15 2005
Picon

Re: Conclusion: Joe vs draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-04.txt


Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>> which changes you'd like to see so I'll just have to ask "send text" and
>>> I'll check it out.
>>
>>
>> IMO, the major doc focus issues are more important and need to be
>> resolved before it would be useful to contribute text, since the latter
>> assumes that such pointwise patches would be productive, and I don't yet
>> see that.
> 
> Ok, I think your main argument against the current structure is:
> 
>   Documenting existing practice and pointing out the violation as a
>   side-issue isn't acceptable to me because it ends up
>   meaning that this doc is a snapshot of current practice, which I
>   don't think is appropriate for an RFC. IMO, the RFC should make a
>   statement that this is either OK and the spec should be changed or
>   that it's not OK and the implementations should be fixed.
> 
> I do not think this is an appropriate as a blocking reason for a
> document

I-D aren't on a default path to RFC that is 'blocked'.

They're on a default path to disappear in 6 months; there needs to be a
*reason* to move to RFC.

(Continue reading)

Thomas Narten | 7 Oct 15:09 2005
Picon

Re AUTOCONF charter

Thomas Heide Clausen <Thomas.Clausen <at> polytechnique.fr> writes:

> > On 9/30/05, Thomas Narten <narten <at> us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>> The MANET community has a well developed undersanding of what a MANET
> >>> is, and how it differentiates itself from traditional Internet
> >>> subnets.
> >>
> >> My question is not "what a MANET is", but what a MANET is "in the
> >> context of IP". What does a MANET look like to IP? How does IP run
> >> over MANET? That is, looking at this as another instance of "IP over
> >> FOO" problem, what is the "IP over MANET" model?  What services does
> >> the "MANET part" supply, and what part does IP have to emulate on top
> >> of that to make an "IP Manet subnet" work like IP over Ethernet or any
> >> other technology over which IP runs? I do not have an understanding of
> >> this, and I sense, neither do some other folk. Note that I am
> >> supportive of doing more manet work in the IETF. But I want to be sure
> >> it is done in a way that works well for IP, existing deployments, etc.
> >>

> Agreed -- and good to hear that you are supportive of MANET work within  
> the IETF in general. This previous paragraph of yours contain a lot of  
> independent questions, and while we'd be happy to address each of them  
> individually if you'd like, I think that it is more constructive to in  
> this email (try to) answer -- or at least give our point of view on --   
> "what the MANET subnet model is" and the related issues of "what is the  
> IP over MANET model" and "what does a MANET look like to IP", as raised  
> above.

> >>> A MANET is a stub subnet as any other stub subnet, with the following
> >>> exceptions:
(Continue reading)

Thomas Narten | 7 Oct 15:09 2005
Picon

AUTOCONF charter

--------
Note: I'm moving discussion of an offline thread to int-area and
manetautoconf to broaden the discussion.

Background: myself and others have expressed concerns about the
autoconf charter. IMO, the current charter has some significant issues
and the focus of the work needs to be redirected if this effort is
going to have a good outcome.

I'll post some background messages and then reply to an ongoing
thread.

Here is an excerpt from an earlier message:

From: Thomas Narten <narten <at> cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret <at> thingmagic.com>
cc: erik.nordmark <at> sun.com, Ralph Droms <rdroms <at> cisco.com>,
    Bob Hinden <bob.hinden <at> nokia.com>,
    Bernard Aboba <aboba <at> internaut.com>, Alex Zinin <zinin <at> psg.com>,
    Mark Townsley <townsley <at> cisco.com>,
    Brian E Carpenter <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com>, shubranshu <at> gmail.com,
    Thomas.Clausen <at> polytechnique.fr
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:51:16 -0400
Subject: Re: AUTOCONF Chartering Call 

Hi. I just looked at what I assume is the most recent charter
(margaret sent it out on sept 22).

Second, looking at the charter, I think the first three paragraphs
completely miss the most important aspect of this work...
(Continue reading)

Ralph Droms | 7 Oct 15:44 2005
Picon

Re: [MANET-AUTOCONF] AUTOCONF charter

On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 09:09 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> From: Thomas Narten <narten <at> cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
> To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret <at> thingmagic.com>
> cc: erik.nordmark <at> sun.com, Ralph Droms <rdroms <at> cisco.com>,
>     Bob Hinden <bob.hinden <at> nokia.com>,
>     Bernard Aboba <aboba <at> internaut.com>, Alex Zinin <zinin <at> psg.com>,
>     Mark Townsley <townsley <at> cisco.com>,
>     Brian E Carpenter <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com>, shubranshu <at> gmail.com,
>     Thomas.Clausen <at> polytechnique.fr
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:51:16 -0400
> Subject: Re: AUTOCONF Chartering Call 
> >In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
> >2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local
> >addresses that are valid within an ad hoc network.
> 
> yes. But this is not enough to communicate. There also needs to be a
> model/framework/architecture that defines an "ad hoc subnet":
> 
>   - what is the subnet model? I.e., for a collection of links, what
>     are the boundaries of a "subnet", where each node is part of the
>     same ad hoc network?
> 
>   - how are packets forwarded within a subnet? How is address
>     resolution done? How does a sender decide whether a destination on
>     the "subnet" is directly reachable, or is reachable through  a
>     forwarding node?
> 
>   - How is multicast traffic distributed within the subnet?
> 
>   - in IPv6, how are RAs distributed?
(Continue reading)

Charles E. Perkins | 7 Oct 17:52 2005
Picon

Re: [MANET-AUTOCONF] AUTOCONF charter


Hello Thomas,

I have some possible answers to your questions.

But first, a little background.  In our group, we implemented a
number of ad hoc networks, and wanted the nodes to be able to
have addresses.  So we devised a way for them to get addresses.
It worked.  Other people noticed the same problem, and designed
other ways that worked.  We got together, had a couple of BOFs,
and put together a charter that seemed to make sense to the
practitioners who wanted to agree on a standard method for
getting addresses.  So that's where I'm coming from.

ext Thomas Narten wrote:

>yes. But this is not enough to communicate. There also needs to be a
>model/framework/architecture that defines an "ad hoc subnet":
>  
>
Not necessarily, at least not in any formalized rigid way.  People who are
building these things like crazy don't seem to have any terrible problems
getting the devices to communicate.

>  - what is the subnet model? I.e., for a collection of links, what
>    are the boundaries of a "subnet", where each node is part of the
>    same ad hoc network?
>  
>
Often, there is no subnet model.  If there is one, then it's a matter of 
(Continue reading)

Pekka Savola | 7 Oct 18:22 2005
Picon

Re: Re: [MANET-AUTOCONF] AUTOCONF charter

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>>  - how are packets forwarded within a subnet?
>> 
> Not germane to address allocation.  See [manet] for a lot of ideas.
>
>> How is address
>>    resolution done?
>> 
> Not germane to address allocation.

It seems to be.  IPv6 uses link-local addresses, with are.. well.. 
link-local.  This stuff needs to exist -- it's not necessary to 
specify it in autoconf, but it needs to be specified.

In any case, it would be good to specify which documents you're 
talking about [manet] or [autoconf] doesn't help those who haven't 
participated in manetautoconf.  The web page for the WG/BOF 
effort (from the last proceedings) doesn't work anymore either, and I 
only found the new one by googling.

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Tim Shepard | 7 Oct 18:36 2005
Picon

Re: Access to 802.16 Archives


> A question has arisen about access to the IEEE 802.16 archives. 
> 
> The Chair of 802.16, Roger Marks, has granted archive access 
> to participants in IETF,  in order to enable review of IEEE 802.16e.  If 
> you would like access to the archive, please contact me in email. 

Please make any documets which are to be discussed within the IETF
*publicly* available.  I believe it is innappropriate to discuss
documents within the IETF which are not publicly available.  They
should be at least as available as Internet drafts are.

If needed, write down in your own words what is needed for the
discussion and submit it as an Internet draft.

(Under what conditions exactly is Roger Marks proposing to make these
documents available?  For example, would I be able to share them with
collegues and potential collaborators, students, customers, and
friends I have technical conversations with, etc?  Why cannot they
simply be made publicly available?)

			-Tim Shepard
			 shep <at> alum.mit.edu
James Kempf | 7 Oct 19:32 2005

Re: Re: [MANET-AUTOCONF] AUTOCONF charter

It seems to me that one of the problems might be that MANET defines a 
routing architecture which is not based on subnets. If a MANET is in 
isolation, this isn't so much of a problem, because the MANET routing 
protocol takes care of forwarding. However, autoconf is proposing to connect 
two differently architected networks, the IP subnet routed style and a 
MANET. So the questions I understand Thomas to be asking (coming from the 
Internet side) are what is the "gearing"  for the "transmission" between 
these two based on IP subnet routing, while the responses I hear Charlie 
giving are that there is some empirical evidence that certain kinds of 
"gearing" work well and they would like standardize those.

Have I got that right?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep <at> iprg.nokia.com>
To: <manetautoconf <at> ml.free.fr>
Cc: <int-area <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 8:52 AM
Subject: [Int-area] Re: [MANET-AUTOCONF] AUTOCONF charter

>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> I have some possible answers to your questions.
>
> But first, a little background.  In our group, we implemented a
> number of ad hoc networks, and wanted the nodes to be able to
> have addresses.  So we devised a way for them to get addresses.
(Continue reading)

Bernard Aboba | 8 Oct 00:28 2005

Re: Access to 802.16 Archives

> Please make any documents which are to be discussed within the IETF
> *publicly* available.  

The IEEE 802.16 specification, like other IEEE 802 standards, is publicly 
available through the "Get IEEE 802 Program".  See:

http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.16.html

> I believe it is innappropriate to discuss
> documents within the IETF which are not publicly available.  They
> should be at least as available as Internet drafts are.

I agree.  Looking over the IP over 802.16 BOF description, it appears that 
the BOF organizers have provided public specifications. 

> If needed, write down in your own words what is needed for the
> discussion and submit it as an Internet draft.

Since I'm not involved in the BOF, I'm afraid I can't do that :)

> (Under what conditions exactly is Roger Marks proposing to make these
> documents available?  For example, would I be able to share them with
> collegues and potential collaborators, students, customers, and
> friends I have technical conversations with, etc?  Why cannot they
> simply be made publicly available?)

The IEEE 802.16 standards are publicly available (see above).  Roger has 
also provided access to the archives, which include proposals, works in 
progress, etc.  As far as I know, there is no problem with sharing the 
documents. 
(Continue reading)


Gmane