Subject: [Manet-dt] evaluation plan for OSPF MANET

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:50:55 -0800

Note:  This message is intended to start new discussions.  Replies
**only** to [email-masked].

Now that we have established a list for this activity, I would like to
suggest that the first order of business should be to agree upon a fair
process whereby the OSPF WG is in a position to move forward on an OSPF
MANET design by the March meeting.    

A first step should be to agree upon what we are trying to decide.  I
believe that we are trying to decide upon whether the basis for
efficient flooding and topology control for OSPF MANET should be a
source-independent connected dominating set (specifically, Ogier's MDR
proposal) or a source-dependent connected dominating set (specifically,
Overlapping Relays with Smart Peering).  

I also believe that, unless it is proven that the two current designs
have significant performance differences in different operating
environments, we are trying to downselect to one OSPF MANET design, not
to define the operating regions most applicable to two separate designs.

A second step should be to agree on evaluation criteria and scenarios,
to address the comments at the WG meeting that the previously used
scenarios were too narrow.  This should be agreed upon within the next
month or so, based on list discussion.  The scenarios/criteria need to
be feasible to achieve in the timeframe of this evaluation.

A third step should be to allow time for the interested parties to study
the proposed approaches in light of the above criteria.  Simulation or
implementation experiments can be used to support arguments, but are not
required in any or all cases.  I will take the action item to integrate
the new Cisco code and post a new evaluation software release.

A fourth step is to have any interested party submit a short position
draft on the issue at hand.  The position draft should be page limited
(e.g., 10 pages) so that it is more accessible to a wider WG review,
although it may reference additional supporting material.  It would be
recommended but not required that any simulation or implementation
scripts used to justify the arguments be made available at this time as
well (private simulation results should probably be treated with less
confidence by the WG).  Drafts should not be allowed later than the I-D
cutoff date, and the publishing of such a draft should be required to
make a formal presentation on this topic at the Dallas meeting. 

The fifth step is to have discussion on the list between the I-D cutoff
and the meeting, and presentations and discussions at the Dallas
meeting.

Comments?

Tom

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt