Thursday, March 14, 2013< ^ >
bebemaster has set the subject to: End
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[17:01:37] joins the room
[17:04:15] leaves the room
[19:00:48] joins the room
[19:02:40] John Dowdell joins the room
[19:03:27] bebemaster joins the room
[19:05:14] Ulrich Herberg joins the room
[19:06:52] yuichi.igarashi joins the room
[19:08:42] teco.boot joins the room
[19:10:15] <bebemaster> Does anyone have the audio working yet?  I had it working for the last wg before they ended.  Do they turn off the stream during the break?
[19:10:31] <> no. I have the same problem with you
[19:10:49] <John Dowdell> cant hear audio now. was working before the break
[19:11:07] <Ulrich Herberg> can you hear that?
[19:11:09] <> I tried with the last WG session in stream02, which works well
[19:11:24] <John Dowdell> hey just pressed play on WMP, now works again
[19:12:21] <bebemaster> Thanks John I suppose it's something on my end now then.
[19:12:33] <> no audio here...
[19:13:01] <Ulrich Herberg> I can confirm
[19:13:04] <Ulrich Herberg> it does not work
[19:13:08] <Ulrich Herberg> the URL is invalid
[19:13:55] <Ulrich Herberg> I can summarize what happens
[19:14:52] <Ulrich Herberg> Note Well
[19:15:15] <bebemaster> If it continues to be an issue can ieft staff be contacted to try and fix it?
[19:15:15] badamson joins the room
[19:15:28] <Ulrich Herberg> yes, but I don't know to which email address to send
[19:15:38] <Ulrich Herberg> Justin, could you do that please?
[19:15:46] <> it worked well in the last WG session… strange...
[19:15:50] <Ulrich Herberg> agenda bashing
[19:15:55] <Ulrich Herberg> the mike is on here
[19:16:38] <bebemaster> I'll try a reboot...and look for that email to send...
[19:16:47] <teco.boot> maybe try skype? contact me (teco.boot)
[19:16:52] bebemaster leaves the room
[19:17:17] <Ulrich Herberg> yeah, try skype
[19:17:35] <Ulrich Herberg> any issues with the agenda?
[19:17:44] <Ulrich Herberg> WG document status
[19:18:06] <Ulrich Herberg> announcement from Emmanuel
[19:18:11] <Ulrich Herberg> about Maniac 2013
[19:18:17] <Ulrich Herberg> event colocated with next IETF
[19:18:39] bebemaster joins the room
[19:18:45] <Ulrich Herberg> demonstrate practical mobile off-loading via completementary suer ad hoc networking
[19:18:48] <teco.boot> OK john, better audio?
[19:19:01] <John Dowdell> good thanks teco
[19:19:14] ricktaylor joins the room
[19:19:17] ricktaylor leaves the room
[19:19:28] ricktaylor joins the room
[19:19:30] <Ulrich Herberg> short concepts (2 pages) requested
[19:19:38] <Ulrich Herberg> idea is to implement concept during the event
[19:19:58] <teco.boot> Rick, if you want audio, skype to teco.boot
[19:19:59] <bebemaster> When/where is the event?
[19:20:09] <ricktaylor> Thanks Teco
[19:20:23] <Ulrich Herberg> July 27 / 28
[19:21:09] <Ulrich Herberg> web site explains the conditions to participate
[19:21:17] <Ulrich Herberg> basically just a sound proposal
[19:21:29] <Ulrich Herberg> brian adamson: is Android  code available?
[19:21:35] <Ulrich Herberg> not ready yet
[19:21:44] <Ulrich Herberg> but got description of API available shortly
[19:21:54] <Ulrich Herberg> s/got//
[19:22:02] <Ulrich Herberg> Joe: is it limited to Unicast?
[19:22:13] <Ulrich Herberg> it's based on OLSR v1, not v2
[19:22:19] <Ulrich Herberg> will be unicast only
[19:22:24] <teco.boot> Sorry, I didn't merge calls
[19:22:37] <teco.boot> Thomas, call again?
[19:23:28] <> the stream is back
[19:23:33] <teco.boot> Thomas, call again and I'll merge in call
[19:23:35] <Ulrich Herberg> WG document status (see slides)
[19:24:09] <John Dowdell> think audio stream is back
[19:24:13] <> audio stream is back
[19:24:24] <bebemaster> thanks
[19:24:30] <ricktaylor> Thanks
[19:25:33] <Ulrich Herberg> questions on the document status?
[19:26:08] <teco.boot> Ulrich now, manet management
[19:29:58] tc joins the room
[19:30:31] <tc> Is this working?
[19:30:36] <> yes
[19:30:40] <tc> Thanks
[19:31:08] <> For the moment, is there any manet routing protocol now using SNMP for management? Could be helpful to get experience from that.
[19:31:37] <tc> The audio quality is very hard to digest - official IETF streaming didn't work, so skype via Uli....
[19:31:54] <> I think the audio is OK
[19:32:01] <teco.boot> I can help, teco.boot
[19:32:07] <bebemaster> audio is working for me again too.
[19:32:07] <> the offical one works
[19:32:15] <tc> I'll try again, then.
[19:35:08] <tc> OK, it works now. Thanks to whoever fixed this.
[19:39:03] <> no jabber robot?
[19:40:07] <teco.boot> Sorry, at mic
[19:40:16] <teco.boot> Now Adrian
[19:40:48] <> thanks, Teco :)
[19:42:13] <teco.boot> Discussion Adrian, Joe on why management for MANET, is there a NOC
[19:42:28] <tc> Who's at the mike now?
[19:42:45] <teco.boot> Brian A at mike
[19:42:50] <tc> tnx
[19:43:12] llanolddog joins the room
[19:43:34] <> For the moment, is there any manet routing protocol now using SNMP for management? Could be helpful to get experience from that.
[19:43:54] <teco.boot> olsrd has web, txt and jason. Not snmp
[19:45:03] <bebemaster> NRLNHDP supports snmp with an external management piece.  Presentation should be within this wg.
[19:46:20] <tc> jOLSRv2 has MIB also, I think....
[19:46:39] <tc> Well, I know that it does, but I think it's already known to the wg from previously.
[19:47:18] <teco.boot> Now MIBs
[19:47:26] <teco.boot> overview
[19:48:13] <teco.boot> 3: nhdp mib
[19:49:21] <bebemaster> Henning tested NHDP interop with his code. Only non-supported functions didn't work....
[19:49:22] <teco.boot> 4: olsrv2 mib
[19:49:42] <teco.boot> to Henning: also snmp interop??
[19:49:58] <bebemaster> ipv6 and multiple addresses per interface ofr nrlnhdp.  No just a FYI NHDP only interop
[19:50:07] <teco.boot> 5: smf mib
[19:50:16] <teco.boot> 6: ecds mib
[19:50:33] bebemaster leaves the room
[19:51:17] bebemaster joins the room
[19:51:41] <teco.boot> 7: report mib
[19:52:01] <teco.boot> 8: ref
[19:52:33] <teco.boot> DLEP
[19:55:26] <tc> Question: I believe that a while back, FKIE proposed an alternative design for DLEP functionality, and there was even an I-D ( What is the status with respect to approaching these two?
[19:56:20] <llanolddog> Ulrich going to mic
[19:56:38] <tc> On the face of it, the rogge-stateless-rfc5444 design seemed cleaner
[19:58:18] <ricktaylor> Resources isn't a very good metric
[19:58:33] <bebemaster> IMO the number of specific metric resources defined within DLEP is not all that important.  Having a few core well understood metrics along with a table to allow further development is the way to go.  Getting the right framework is key.
[19:58:43] <tc> Comment: When designing various other protocols in [MANET] mr. Farrel informed us that we should have only "2-4 experimental code poins", and not a large space.
[19:58:48] <ricktaylor> @bebmaster: Absolutely!¬
[19:59:11] <tc> So "experimental code points" isn't going to be a very scalable idea to go forward, is it?
[19:59:43] <ricktaylor> Experimental code points vs. Vendor extension code points is an argument for the list
[20:00:33] <tc> There were discussions, but I do not remember any conclusions?
[20:00:37] <llanolddog> It's true that I have extensive caution towards experimental code points in a standards track protocol
[20:00:55] <llanolddog> And vendor code points are a whole different issue :-)
[20:01:02] <tc> And certainly none retained in WG records
[20:01:57] <tc> Thank you for that snarky reply.
[20:02:08] <tc> Ulrich, would you bring the code-points forward?
[20:02:22] <Ulrich Herberg> ok
[20:03:05] <ricktaylor> Is the WG concerned that there are no radio vendors visibly involved in DLEP discussion?
[20:03:28] <John Dowdell> How much experimentation have people done with metric-based routing with radios? Do we yet know what experiemental metrics are useful yet?
[20:03:43] <tc> Well, as it happens, if mr. Farrel does not approve of large experimental spaces, then the document largely is going to be blocked.
[20:04:40] <tc> We had an almost-ultimatum (well, slightly less violently) from Adrian to restrict to 2-4 code-points in some OLSRv2 thingie
[20:05:12] <ricktaylor> Ulrich can you ask my question please?
[20:05:17] <Ulrich Herberg> yes, after adrian
[20:05:25] <Ulrich Herberg> also John
[20:05:30] <ricktaylor> Thanks
[20:05:36] <John Dowdell> thanks
[20:07:18] <John Dowdell> ah i understand adrian's point now
[20:08:15] <tc> YES, very much!
[20:11:19] <ricktaylor> 'Industrial code points' are very different from experimental codepoints
[20:11:24] <tc> I'd like to loop back  on the DLEP-vs-Rogge-DLEP I-Ds, if you wouldn't mind. I believe that it would greatly benefit if the discussions, or at least the conclusions of the discussions, be brought forward to the WG somehow. I do not believe that the design options have had sufficient vetting by the WG as a whole....
[20:11:38] <Ulrich Herberg> rick, do you want me to read that out?
[20:11:48] <ricktaylor> No, Adrian covered it.
[20:11:52] <Ulrich Herberg> I thought so
[20:11:59] <Ulrich Herberg> I'll read out tc's comment
[20:13:11] <tc> Thomas is an author of neither, therefore do not know them well enough to feel comfortable doing that.
[20:14:00] oleg joins the room
[20:14:00] oleg leaves the room
[20:15:03] <ricktaylor> I remember there being quite extensive discussions over the Rogge DLEP
[20:15:34] oleg joins the room
[20:19:24] <tc> Regarding this document, I am befuddled how this document became a WG document without a poll for WG consensus. The choice of going forward with DYMO, despite an alternative (with much larger backing) existed came by by an AD decision, not WG consensus. I believe that the WG should be allowed to express consensus if chosing to forward this as WG document - absent such, of course, the AD has other means of publication.
[20:21:01] Ron_intVelt joins the room
[20:23:32] <tc> Well, if your starting point is picking document A over document B, then you effectively have picked the protocol in document A
[20:24:02] <tc> So that's a technicality.
[20:24:18] <> What I understand is that, the first step is running without WG consensus.
[20:25:35] <tc> Secondly, by way of effectively selecting DYMO, and without giving any arguments as to the choice, effectively the WG is neutered - especially those behind the alternative document.
[20:26:20] <tc> That renders it almost impossible to contribute to WG, or to WG progress....given that our leadership is not "leading" by explaining
[20:27:17] mcharlesr joins the room
[20:28:24] <tc> So, question: do we believe in rough consensus and running code?
[20:28:37] <tc> LOADng 11 authors and >4 interoperable implementations out there running.
[20:28:53] <tc> How many are aligned behind DYMO, and how much running code is there behind that protocol?
[20:29:48] <> I'm not sure what "technical discussion/experience" means. At least, for me, the running code doesn't count.
[20:30:21] <> that's what I learned from WG.
[20:31:11] <tc> A comment to Charlie: I believe that this is a little bit hypocritical.... wasn't the reason for the stalemate strictly non-technical?
[20:31:55] <tc> Jiazi, you think that running code shouldn't count?
[20:32:19] <bebemaster> That isn't fair (regarding stans statement about declined editorship).  There are were issues involved.
[20:32:19] <ricktaylor> Open Question: How can the new AODVv2 editorial team reach out to the LOADng in a way that makes progress?
[20:32:24] <> That's what I learnt from the manet WG experience.
[20:35:47] <tc> Well, Stan, there's making an offer, and then there's "making an offer that can only be declined"?
[20:36:53] <tc> I have proposed many many times to ADs, Chairs, that the most effective way forward would have been to (i) started from an /empty/ textfile and (ii) appointing /entirely/ neutral editors (such as John)
[20:37:08] <tc> To me, that would have created a level playing field for everybody.
[20:37:40] <tc> Given the choice of DYMO, and the construction of the editor team behind AODVv2, that was not a level playing field.
[20:38:31] <ricktaylor> That question was for the LOADng team as well as Charlie
[20:39:38] <ricktaylor> Thank you Charlie
[20:41:58] <tc> Well, that was how LOADng was designed, Emmanuel
[20:42:08] <tc> But, apparently, that design wasn't preferred
[20:44:32] <John Dowdell> me too
[20:44:39] mcharlesr leaves the room
[20:44:39] <bebemaster> gateway support (even in limited scenarios) should be included in the draft.  
[20:46:20] <tc> Without it, there's strictly no use of the protocol.
[20:46:28] <tc> And, it's not trivial to do that (gateway support)
[20:47:09] <Ulrich Herberg> shall I read that out?
[20:47:55] <tc> Not sure what there was humming on.
[20:47:59] <Ulrich Herberg> me neither
[20:48:06] <Ulrich Herberg> I did not hear anything
[20:48:18] <Ulrich Herberg> I think the humming was on agreement to go forward with the list of options
[20:48:31] <bebemaster> ah and there was no humming?
[20:48:37] <Ulrich Herberg> I did not hear any
[20:50:06] John Dowdell leaves the room
[20:50:14] bebemaster leaves the room
[20:50:58] Ulrich Herberg leaves the room
[20:51:09] ricktaylor leaves the room
[20:51:59] leaves the room
[20:52:42] llanolddog leaves the room
[20:53:06] yuichi.igarashi leaves the room
[20:58:57] Ron_intVelt leaves the room
[20:59:45] Ron_intVelt joins the room
[21:06:31] oleg leaves the room
[21:08:17] Ron_intVelt leaves the room
[21:13:34] badamson leaves the room
[21:18:14] teco.boot leaves the room
[21:20:27] llanolddog joins the room
[21:28:09] llanolddog leaves the room
[21:33:24] teco.boot joins the room
[21:58:09] teco.boot leaves the room
[22:03:19] teco.boot joins the room
[22:42:10] llanolddog joins the room
[22:43:55] llanolddog leaves the room
[22:50:12] llanolddog joins the room
[22:56:53] teco.boot leaves the room
[23:05:45] llanolddog leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!