RE: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design team outbrief (draft slides) posted

["Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com>]

> This bullet on page 17 of your slides bothers me:
> 
> > Emmanuel Baccelli stated that MPR flooding offers better properties 
> > than CDS flooding, with at least as good topology reduction 
> > capabilities, and better routing stretch performance
> 
> 
> Emmanuel may have "stated" such things, but Phil and I 
> clearly pointed out that some of his statements were 
> incorrect and based on a lack of understanding of the MDR 
> approach. Therefore, one may say that your bullet is the 
> truth, but not the whole truth.  You could add something like:
> "Phil and Richard pointed out that Emmanuel's statements were 
> not justified and Emmanuel did not dispute this."  OK, so 
> this may be biased in the other direction, but I am making a point.
> 

I am trying to represent the range of opinions expressed without passing
too much judgement on whether claims have been substantiated.

> The following bullet is from your last slide:
> 
> > To move forward on one approach, first need to make a decision to 
> > pursue either source-independent or source-dependent flooding
> 
> 
> With recent improvements to the Smart Peering approach, and 
> with improvements also possible to the MDR approach, it looks 
> like we need to continue to compare the two approaches (and 
> improvements of them) for a few more months.
> (I will discuss possible improvements to MDR in another 
> email.) I am not opposed to "moving forward" with *two* 
> approaches, at least for a few more months, with the 
> understanding that a decision must be made at some point. 
> This would mean that the WG would provide 
> comments/suggestions for *both* approaches, and help to 
> decide which approach to use.
> As you mentioned, the accepted approach can borrow techniques 
> from the other approach if appropriate.
> 

This is to be discussed at the WG meeting-- whether to continue forward
with two approaches, and if the goal remains to have one agreed upon
approach, what is the process and timetable by which one is selected.

Since you'll not be there, I'll take your post above as a preference to
continue to study both approaches for another meeting cycle.  

Thanks for the feedback,
Tom

_______________________________________________
Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
Ospf-wireless-design at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design