 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, On 2009/10/28, at 2:15, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
Teco, Thanks for the support. <wg-chair-hat-on>I think that the first steps should be revival of draft-baccelli- multi-hop-wireless-communication (if the authors are willing - it's an individual I-D), to bring it up to date, incorporating comments etc.I also think that if I propose to our AD to add further documents as wg documents, he'll look at me weirdly and ask 'so where are we with the addressing model, then, the current wg charter item'?If my answer is "we're making great progress, the addressing model actually uses this/these other documents, go look at them on this URL, but I feel we're ready to submit to the IESG within a month", then he'll probably be quite receptive to the idea. Otherwise, I doubt he'll be enthusiastic, considering our spectacular record of not making measurable progress thus far.Therefore, my immediate concern is to get the wg charter item in shape. If this -- or any other document -- is needed for that end, let's advance those as individuals for now. When the WG is certain that there's a strong case for asking the AD to allow us to accept further documents, I'll make that case to the AD.I think that there're no inconveniences to this approach, considering that I think that Baccelli/Perkins are receptive to WG input.To answer your question, I do not think that this document has been presented at an autoconf meeting. Should the authors be interested in doing so in Hiroshima, and should the WG think that it would help, then I don't see any problems in having a slot during the autoconf session for that.
I agree with Thomas, we should first focus on the addressing model and complete the only one WG item.
I would like to focus on the one AUTOCONF WG item at this moment.According to the ML discussion, there are certain interests from WG and relationship to the addressing model document. I am fine with a presentation slot for this work at Hiroshima if authors can incorporate the recent WG discussion in the presentation.
The document is also expired a month ago. regards, ryuji
Cheers, Thomas On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Teco Boot wrote:All, Just to repeat my responses / opinion on WG documents. I support draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication for adoption as WG document. I know it is not our charter, but IMHO the document is very useful. Also, it (partly?) solves an open issue (MANET link model) in the baccelli-autoconf-adhoc -addr-model . I remember an AD saying we are allowed to submit an Informational Document, if it helps achieving our milestones. Did authors present this doc at an Autoconf meeting? Regards, Teco-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Thomas Heide Clausen [mailto:thomas at thomasclausen.org] Verzonden: woensdag 28 oktober 2009 9:43 Aan: Teco Boot CC: Charles Perkins; autoconf at ietf.org; Emmanuel Baccelli Onderwerp: Discussion on draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless- communication-02 Teco, (I change the subject line, as this really is a new thread of discussion) On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Teco Boot wrote:On: draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-02Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: Can you remind me, Teco, what was wrong with "exposed node"?Figure 2 is correct now. When A sends to B, C is prohibited to send to D due to CS. But if C was not blocked, B still would receive A. So preventing C sending to D is reducing the capacity of the wireless channel (spatial reuse is less optimal). This problem has little to do with IP.Alright.Text in error:Eventhough node C cannot hear D, node D can nevertheless hear C, becausenode D is outside node A's radio range.And:Here, exposed node has little to do with asymmetry (as defined in samethe exposed node problem is a practical example of the asymmetrydocument.What you say makes sense to me.I'm not an author of that document, and it's not a wg document -- butknowing Charlie/Emmanuel I'm almost willing to bet that they'd be happy to incorporate a change to reflect this (if they agree, of course). Could you propose replacement paragraphs or rewordings?Any other issues that you would like to see addressed in that document?Baccelli/Perkins, feel free to bounce an updated I-D to the list, evenif it can't be submitted to the repositories just yet. In my experience, quick turn-around cycles for "alpha's" are a good way of getting both eyes on the document and making rapid progress. We can then discuss in Hiroshima what to do forward? Thanks, ThomasRegards, Teco_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf