Re: DSRv2 the first effort idea of Reactive using NHDP

> Very Incorrect postulate.
>
> LOADng, AODV, and other reactive protocols can well be used with NHDP -- and
> this, without requiring any special provisioning.
>
> The reason there's no I-D stating that is that it's....well...obvious and
> requires no special provisioning or considerations for interoperability....
>
> Should we have a specification for how to use HTTP with TCP also?
>
> --
> Thomas Heide Clausen
> http://www.thomasclausen.org/
>
> "Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to
>  discuss it."
>    -- Mitchell's Law of Committees
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2012, at 23:21, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Please note that I am working on DSRv2 which will submit to MANET WG.
>> My idea of NHDP used in a reactive protocol was not worked on yet, the
>> DSRv2 was the first to announce this use of NHDP with reactive.
>> Furthermore,  I don't think there is restrictions on submitting I-Ds
>> to MANET WG, please read the charter and give me an excluding
>> statement. If yes there is this issue as you refer, I recommend only
>> the Chair or AD to educate me on stop the work I already am doing for
>> weeks. I think when I submit WG then can discuss further,
>>
>> AB
>> =======
>>
>> On 7/6/12, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@...>
>> wrote:
>>> How can you know there is a need for DSRv2? It's not in the WG charter,
>>> and
>>> I've not seen anyone else on the list support the idea.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher Dearlove
>>> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
>>> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
>>> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
>>> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
>>> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
>>> chris.dearlove@... | http://www.baesystems.com
>>>
>>> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
>>> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace
>>> Centre,
>>> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
>>> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@...]
>>> Sent: 06 July 2012 13:13
>>> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
>>> Cc: ulrich@...; manet
>>> Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP-MIB: ifType
>>>
>>> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
>>> This message originates from outside our organisation,
>>> either from an external partner or from the internet.
>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
>>> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> the point for me is not an individual understanding of the charter, MY
>>> effort is aimed to the community needs. So I RECOMMEND that any
>>> IETF-WG respects the community or even IETF-participant needs. I
>>> respect the WG charter and I am participating, so I hope the WG
>>> comments on my work. I know there is a need in DSRv2 and the future
>>> will prove my point, I will remind you of this in the future don't
>>> worry,
>>>
>>> AB
>>> =========
>>> On 7/6/12, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I'll also note that the WG doesn't need DSRv2, even if you have
>>>> permission
>>>> from the original authors to use their work (which I see no sign of).
>>>> The
>>>> WG
>>>> is charted to produce one reactive protocol. Multiplicity of protocols
>>>> is
>>>> a
>>>> bad, not a good, thing, unless there is a pressing reason for it. In
>>>> the
>>>> reactive space the WG's adopted solution has been DYMO. Now that having
>>>> stalled - though it may now be out of that stall - may (no stronger
>>>> than
>>>> that) open up the possibility that another protocol already developed
>>>> to
>>>> a
>>>> similar maturity could be considered. LOADng claims to be that, I
>>>> haven't
>>>> examined that claim. But a new protocol is clearly not that.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher Dearlove
>>>> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
>>>> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
>>>> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
>>>> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
>>>> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
>>>> chris.dearlove@... | http://www.baesystems.com
>>>>
>>>> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
>>>> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace
>>>> Centre,
>>>> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
>>>> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: manet-bounces@... [mailto:manet-bounces@...] On Behalf
>>>> Of
>>>> Abdussalam Baryun
>>>> Sent: 06 July 2012 06:34
>>>> To: ulrich@...
>>>> Cc: manet
>>>> Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP-MIB: ifType
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
>>>> This message originates from outside our organisation,
>>>> either from an external partner or from the internet.
>>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
>>>> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I need the NHDP as a MANET interface for the DSRv2, which I suggested
>>>> for DSRv2 before, so I like/agree that you consider the flag ifType,
>>>> thanks very much,
>>>>
>>>> It is interesting if most manet routings use NHDP or even be possible
>>>> to use in future, because I think it is a MANET interface as specified
>>>> in OLSRv2.
>>>>
>>>> AB
>>>> ++++++++
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> we are currently working on a revised ID of the NHDP-MIB, as follow-up
>>>>> on requests during the IESG review. Amongst others, one request from
>>>>> Thomas Nadeau may affect other MIB documents as well, which is why I
>>>>> post it on the mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current interface table in the NHDP-MIB is a copy of the interface
>>>>> MIB, with potentially many entries that are not MANET interfaces (but
>>>>> still waste space). What we are really interested in is monitoring and
>>>>> managing NHDP interfaces. Thomas Nadeau suggested to ask IANA to
>>>>> specify a ifType=MANET (as allowed by RFC2863 and the IANAifType
>>>>> registry), and to list only those in the NHDP-MIB. Bob and I propose
>>>>> that IANA allocates such an ifType, which covers all MANET WG
>>>>> protocols, i.e. ifType=MANET would be used for interfaces running
>>>>> NHDP, OLSRv2, SMF, DYMO, etc. In the NhdpIfTable, there is an
>>>>> additional boolean flag which determines whether the interface uses
>>>>> NHDP or not (i.e., if a router runs both DYMO and NHDP, the DYMO-only
>>>>> interfaces would be listed in the nhdpIfTable, but the boolean flag is
>>>>> false).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Ulrich
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> manet mailing list
>>>> manet@...
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ********************************************************************
>>>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>>>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>>>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>>>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>>>> ********************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@...
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>