From nobody Mon Jan 11 09:34:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C161A8BB2 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:34:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.15 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y3g0F5z01t_g for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:34:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E7841A8BB1 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:34:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0BHYCi1010925 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:34:12 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B33661F9D for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:34:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id qkVCeJ5jJnBP for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:34:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAAC861FA6 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:34:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aIgM6-0002ul-19 for babel@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:34:10 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:34:09 +0100 Message-ID: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:34:12 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5693E794.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5693E794.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5693E794.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:34:20 -0000 Dear all, Sorry for the long silence, my teaching season has only just ended. I'll definitely be going to Buenos Aires, and I know that a number of people interested in Babel will be going too. Hence, I think the very least we can do would be to organise a Babel BoF at IETF 95. In an ideal world, however, we'd be able to set things up so that we can create a "Low complexity distance-vector protocol for hybrid networks" working group at Buenos Aires. I'm not sure how to proceed -- what is required so we can create the working group straight away? - a proposed charter? - jauge whether there is enough interest for a WG? - a pair of chairs? So how do we proceed from here? -- Juliusz From nobody Mon Jan 11 10:16:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7878A1A8F46 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:16:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K8wNy1tlLXKH for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE451A8F40 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:16:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56ED1DA008D; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([169.254.4.19]) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.235.67]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:16:05 -0800 From: Ted Lemon To: Juliusz Chroboczek , "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? Thread-Index: AQHRTJZQ+AVN6ulhhk6OvncPcJdqCZ72nvoR Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:16:04 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0EDE0@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [71.233.41.235] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:16:07 -0000 I think the key is to identify the work that we want to do. From nobody Mon Jan 11 12:02:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD011A90BB for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:02:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id usWz3jsddIKO for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A9D1A90BD for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:02:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=692; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452542540; x=1453752140; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=x25tAF5t3FO//62DQTqbovCr6rTiiZqfFqGmxQvyMQ4=; b=MObVCNjf+GlzYgNbCO0AOJSovfDQ5sapXwaP1MkZolkBlUW5pWeOG1s6 iirHukJCMrZvZT36Q8Rc7FpkgLCWEy9n29he7LjW+ova8KEM62D7GF8// MBh8dHwYDx/sQGaxIMQDz7mLei8u7Jn3nNifSmfIvBRReUZn3BYhHcDrQ Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AvAgCECZRW/5JdJa1egzpSbQaHU4EAs?= =?us-ascii?q?2IBDYFmIoVtAoEoOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENQEBBDpPAgEIDigQMiUCBAESCYglDr9?= =?us-ascii?q?sAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBHIZWAYR+gwuBfoQzBZMQhAMBhUKIFoFeSoN5iFyOU?= =?us-ascii?q?AEgAQFCghEcgV1yAYU8gQgBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,554,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="226429526" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jan 2016 20:02:19 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0BK2JH1019136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:02:19 GMT Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:02:18 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:02:19 -0600 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: Juliusz Chroboczek , "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? Thread-Index: AQHRTJZPuOZRMg2be06UtV5QsvuYH572zYQA Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:02:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.5] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:02:22 -0000 On 1/11/16, 12:34 PM, "babel on behalf of Juliusz Chroboczek" wrote: Juliusz: Hi! >So how do we proceed from here? Just pointing at dates/forms: 2016-02-19 (Friday): Cut-off date for BOF proposal requests to Area Directors at UTC 23:59. To request a BOF, please see instructions on Requesting a BOF (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/bof-procedures.html). You should obviously work with an AD well before this deadline. As Ted already said, a clear sense of what the work will be is one of the keys. You will eventually need to fill out the information here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ Alvaro. From nobody Mon Jan 11 13:08:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784701A9173 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:08:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.35 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4d0JwHusaELA for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:08:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C52481A9171 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0BL8Y5e002686 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:08:34 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3804161FA3 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:08:34 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id RmrMyzuvF4p0 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:08:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7D1D61FA2 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:08:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from jch (uid 1000) (envelope-from jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) id 68339b by trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (DragonFly Mail Agent v0.9); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:08:30 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:08:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87mvsbygc1.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0EDE0@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0EDE0@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:08:34 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 569419D2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 569419D2.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 569419D2.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: Babel at IETF Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:08:37 -0000 Hi Ted, > I think the key is to identify the work that we want to do. You mean at the BoF, or as a WG? The goal of the BoF would be to create a WG. I have no idea how WGs are born, so I kindly request guidance from you, Mark, Joel, Alvaro, and any other Wise Men or Women who are willing to help. The goal of the WG would be to define a Standards Track protocol that is roughly equivalent to the combination of RFC 6126 and RFC 7298 ("RFC 6126 Babel"). Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise, the resulting protocol should be backwards compatible with RFC 6126 Babel. At the very least, that entails: - identifying any issues with RFC 6126 Babel that might justify an incompatible change (bumping the protocol's version number); - making a precise list of clarifications required to RFC 6126, based exclusively on implementation experience (there are 4 independent implementations of RFC 6126 now); - merging RFC 7298 into RFC 6126. -- Juliusz From nobody Mon Jan 11 13:13:35 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823B11A923B for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:13:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-s6qWrDKBzo for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C35B1A923A for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0BLDUl6004634 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:13:30 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBDEC61FA8 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:13:30 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id hDlMlCJJhBuf for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:13:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 114A361FA6 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:13:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from jch (uid 1000) (envelope-from jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) id 68339b by trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (DragonFly Mail Agent v0.9); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:13:28 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:13:28 +0100 Message-ID: <87k2nfyg3r.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" In-Reply-To: References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:13:30 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 56941AFA.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 56941AFA.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 56941AFA.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: Babel at IETF Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:13:33 -0000 > 2016-02-19 (Friday): Cut-off date for BOF proposal requests Noted, thanks. > You should obviously work with an AD well before this deadline. Right. Perhaps you could advise me (perhaps by private mail) who to contact? > As Ted already said, a clear sense of what the work will be is one of > the keys. You will eventually need to fill out the information here: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ Which means that we need a friendly AD, two friendly chairs, and a rough idea of how many people will attend. -- Juliusz From nobody Mon Jan 11 13:24:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0F11A9172 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:24:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lDcLZE6qqyw7 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7A581A9173 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5E494173D; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:24:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1452547492; bh=JcQS26KD9dkuzNYFv6midCi6JrnMODxsqTyGercgxMc=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=N5bxoeTm38xzCx+aR8gI0J/9UNBWPP+huujwR0Pmy1MS3Gi6Rb9yRETR4k8miWGtW 9rzLvKwjCx4X2nVe5bJoff7q57WckHYhgYA4dOtZGSbhgGiX2MOO94CkNF8SP4O0z0 5a8/8JsDZ2OT9s+Z1ZLtJq7i4fdljJ9R5r2U4ea8= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D341A1C0C10; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:24:51 -0800 (PST) To: Juliusz Chroboczek References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0EDE0@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <87mvsbygc1.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <56941D76.5070008@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:24:06 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87mvsbygc1.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Babel at IETF Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:24:54 -0000 Even if all we get is a BoF, the best starting point is a clear description of what we hope the eventual working group is to accomplish. Given that, we can figure out what open items a BoF should focus on, potentially including determining interest and a set of people interested in doing work. So, as soon as we have a decent description of the goal, get that onto the BoF wiki. We can then work with ADs for sponsorship and finding BoF chairs. If we make enough progress that the AD and IESG decide to charter the WG before Buenos Aires, all well and good. If not, we have the BoF request in. That request can also serve as a public anchor for further discussion of what we are trying to do. Yours, Joel On 1/11/16 4:08 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Hi Ted, > >> I think the key is to identify the work that we want to do. > > You mean at the BoF, or as a WG? > > The goal of the BoF would be to create a WG. I have no idea how WGs are > born, so I kindly request guidance from you, Mark, Joel, Alvaro, and any > other Wise Men or Women who are willing to help. > > The goal of the WG would be to define a Standards Track protocol that is > roughly equivalent to the combination of RFC 6126 and RFC 7298 ("RFC 6126 > Babel"). Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise, the resulting > protocol should be backwards compatible with RFC 6126 Babel. > > At the very least, that entails: > > - identifying any issues with RFC 6126 Babel that might justify an > incompatible change (bumping the protocol's version number); > > - making a precise list of clarifications required to RFC 6126, based > exclusively on implementation experience (there are 4 independent > implementations of RFC 6126 now); > > - merging RFC 7298 into RFC 6126. > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > From nobody Mon Jan 11 20:51:01 2016 Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com> X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78141ACDEE for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:50:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aHrpRuXzpxi5 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25DFB1A7000 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 65so56239338pff.2 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:50:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=uv4Ekx3rmQh94t+ZiV1ygvIy8zUcbCQHXS9E7/+Z+40=; b=aQMEVdDlndGvgP5z8UaI4/c309zuXit5EM6phvuy+vVzdGmBEwsiraNQFhZdPrPPEr U4eUewDnjYBFAs6ZfDxj4jVrmMcHW9lufTtWTT1yOROZnEEhvT0lHoXxNcaj1IvemuEv 6L62IYB9DZXSe3OBkQGO4USf3TFfBlMRcBNm0H4wdKq/Zc3gJ7VMH240hbz6jhLR8XP/ ewG2vr9EOne83PXovT7CqUt8jVh0Zza2aXrblJ7fl13LSfaMnpsIVDSnb0Tw9qluzhlW oqRpFcGM4eC4xFztcD3rn1+jFFuYtBNvhDMJNxad8RYA6fjtz/N2TZm/3/XDswTr7KrU gZpA== X-Received: by 10.98.16.146 with SMTP id 18mr5974322pfq.122.1452574257771; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from Russ (ip-64-134-21-183.public.wayport.net. [64.134.21.183]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m87sm26670017pfi.47.2016.01.11.20.50.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:50:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" , References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:50:52 -0500 Message-ID: <034601d14cf4$d182b370$74881a50$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQJlDSLMl8dXJ3jagcJcys3Zb4i1cZ3Pzolw Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 04:50:59 -0000 > In an ideal world, however, we'd be able to set things up so that we can > create a "Low complexity distance-vector protocol for hybrid networks" > working group at Buenos Aires. I'm not sure how to proceed -- what is > required so we can create the working group straight away? I would think we need a more specific use case than "hybrid networks..." We could go back to the ideas on the list from earlier -- a lightweight protocol for spine and leaf data center fabrics, a protocol that supports hub and spoke and other topologies well, maybe some others... I'd like to have at least one other use case than homenet just to make certain we have some sort of wider community interest to drive this forward. I don't know if homenet is going to produce enough fire to cook this thing (just based on current interest levels). Of course, that bit is up to the AD's, so... :-) Russ From nobody Tue Jan 12 02:50:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A9F1A8707 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 02:50:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.222 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NGsteZzxyNzw for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 02:50:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4303E1A00A3 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 02:50:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0CAoAoq016264; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:50:10 GMT X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk u0CAoAoq016264 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1452595810; bh=DTJW3hZ3ZINwQQEjvWdoDATjII4=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=0LvOpwn/rNWWqQmJnm056Dcsms9tJKY27QrZwUw9bflNv68txS7qvIOSiip7cmiJg PhdWbELHciitcmS4UFZSsvl1N96lvn/But1cXheNtKvKwnGQLwW43d0m/Bz6JZMYXo UIHRYzmhUPB/8mb2GHK91fJ1g82bVVgf+UBXex98= Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s0BAoA1568706402bP ret-id none; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:50:10 +0000 Received: from [10.1.15.161] (firewall-lho-ext.management.janet.ac.uk [194.82.140.195]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0CAo1qT009791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:50:03 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) From: Tim Chown In-Reply-To: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:50:01 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <96C424BB-82BB-40A4-81CE-8ABAF48C054A@ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: Juliusz Chroboczek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-smtpf-Report: sid=s0BAoA156870640200; tid=s0BAoA1568706402bP; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=2:0; fails=0 X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u0CAoAoq016264 X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:50:19 -0000 Hi Juliusz, > On 11 Jan 2016, at 17:34, Juliusz Chroboczek = wrote: >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > Sorry for the long silence, my teaching season has only just ended. >=20 > I'll definitely be going to Buenos Aires, and I know that a number of > people interested in Babel will be going too. Hence, I think the very > least we can do would be to organise a Babel BoF at IETF 95. >=20 > In an ideal world, however, we'd be able to set things up so that we = can > create a "Low complexity distance-vector protocol for hybrid networks" > working group at Buenos Aires. I'm not sure how to proceed -- what is > required so we can create the working group straight away? >=20 > - a proposed charter? > - jauge whether there is enough interest for a WG? > - a pair of chairs? >=20 > So how do we proceed from here? Have a read of RFC 5434 - lots of good advice in there. Tim= From nobody Tue Jan 12 04:52:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4459B1AD0C0 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 04:52:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m12z0UjV8-Z3 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 04:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7607D1AD0BF for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 04:52:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=56553 helo=rays-mbp-2.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1aIyQp-0007Ll-Ou (Exim 4.72) for babel@ietf.org (return-path ); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:52:15 +0000 To: babel@ietf.org References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <034601d14cf4$d182b370$74881a50$@gmail.com> From: Ray Bellis X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5694F700.3040700@bellis.me.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:52:16 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <034601d14cf4$d182b370$74881a50$@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:52:21 -0000 On 12/01/2016 04:50, Russ White wrote: > I'd like to have at least one other use case than homenet just to > make certain we have some sort of wider community interest to drive > this forward. I don't know if homenet is going to produce enough fire > to cook this thing (just based on current interest levels). Homenet is ultimately just going to be a consumer of routing protocols, and our charter prevents us from actually working on them within the WG. So, whilst we can no-doubt provide interested parties who will watch with avid interest and contribute where they can, we're not well endowed with routing experts who can work on the minutiae. Ray From nobody Tue Jan 12 13:37:03 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD0D1A8A09 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:37:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.35 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9wXoQu1fYO31 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B31A31A8A07 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:36:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0CLalHc032417 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:47 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/56228) with ESMTP id u0CLalB0029234 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:47 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAA362044 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:47 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id TkWHE1Cal82d for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5AC862042 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from jch (uid 1000) (envelope-from jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) id 68025b by trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (DragonFly Mail Agent v0.9); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:45 +0100 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:45 +0100 Message-ID: <87si221nv6.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <034601d14cf4$d182b370$74881a50$@gmail.com> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <034601d14cf4$d182b370$74881a50$@gmail.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:47 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:36:47 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 569571EF.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 569571EF.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 569571EF.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 569571EF.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 569571EF.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 569571EF.001 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:37:01 -0000 Hi Russ, > I would think we need a more specific use case than "hybrid networks..." We > could go back to the ideas on the list from earlier -- a lightweight > protocol for spine and leaf data center fabrics, a protocol that supports > hub and spoke and other topologies well, maybe some others... As far as I am aware, Babel has seen actual production deployment in three kinds of situations: (1) in trivial networks, as a (double-stack) RIP replacement; (2) in overlay networks interconnecting servers over a mixture of wired Ethernet and low- and high-latency tunnels ("distributed could"); (3) in community networks consisting of a mixture of wired ethernet, high- and low-latency tunnels and lossy wireless links. AFAIK, Babel has not seen any deployment in data centers. Babel has also not taken over pure mesh networks, where there are perfectly fine protocols available (notably OLSR-ETX and OLSRv2 with DAT). So what are the features of Babel that make it appealing in those use cases? Perhaps some of you see more reasons, but in my opinion: - in case (1) -- it works and has a solid reference implementation; - in case (2) -- it has support for varying metrics depending on the tunnel RTT and is able to remain stable in the presence of continual fluctuations; - in case (3) -- (i) it has support for varying metrics depending on the packet loss rate and (ii) supports arbitrarily mixing mesh-style (non-transitive links with IP addresses on loopback) and Internet-style (transitive links with IP prefixes on links) topologies in a single routing domain. So how would you express Babel's strengths in a single phrase? I'm not particularly attached to the "hybrid network" formulation, but I don't see a better wording. -- Juliusz From nobody Thu Jan 14 07:02:23 2016 Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com> X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B9C1B3547 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:02:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SZWJi5vY2vSQ for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 437F61B3545 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id e32so394665280qgf.3 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:02:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=oWxMLvl0hujGuqm7fvxiI1gzwKqCWTnf+QTeaf3jHcg=; b=lF64O0+sCECk7njG9jgQCCiqNlnmkvOl7Qn1nr4MsPx3s7W98LMbWw+PX1pxMl3sNr pp01r8q5mydFtZmkM2FXtkx3kPf8D/dn8xBNcxkdk99w/A9EyUd4bGfCxNtrExVt5FBc I4zerXzCJeOLRuIUJJQ9GwONiD06s3nBTh8wJGfEQX/fs0UROSzm9W4Id+56a4rcnMF6 GFomwF3T0+hGyKAZ4lIf3GxGjXsXNgVojvUKJ8/u8xLTJxVrRMglP9O/xuLWbHg+3shZ yJMS4b3CeiuPlSVhVaGRiJ3trS+0AidkihoSx8Eep6lv6rpjjFFaz72ZoagKHk8LNWvK UHMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :thread-index:content-language; bh=oWxMLvl0hujGuqm7fvxiI1gzwKqCWTnf+QTeaf3jHcg=; b=fgzdWTSnT2xv4M8yqSonCFX04nhd3OhwWiyVwkvXuUvbRQiC8J9qXbO7UGq0dDo7Ak 7zJkuYpEYme1BIp/hhGwH0CxrxNpJiHgz0Ivox2P2W7SBkYO8vai3XT6h8enfB+ORyhO +uOJYwf6tpzalBAcw9st9RFgglDFYP8TtnUSNxHITDV6u8KJ4QZFm+71CKyAIzFgSVLO KIEqmDXik/QmZt3NSDfNaKsDytBDqRn37EGTeNsp3uobh29SVrwFD8Jwi8Wyulnkj1cJ xlSVrx44x61o33xPUup0TC1bxEPf6yD02ApAfD5LpsfW07KLu7Eh86jlAbXYh2lpvks2 Nu+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTqLd0k2YHSieQdHm/npXz8qT0HQxOcWtJ9AaWc3FfsRxk0xyha/yH8FMAtlNgTNg== X-Received: by 10.129.76.194 with SMTP id z185mr223790ywa.247.1452783739412; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from Russ ([2602:30a:2e5b:44d0:69f5:fa7a:f750:88e9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w185sm1064407ywe.1.2016.01.14.07.02.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:02:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <034601d14cf4$d182b370$74881a50$@gmail.com> <87si221nv6.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <87si221nv6.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:02:13 -0500 Message-ID: <021c01d14edc$8d2f6440$a78e2cc0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQJlDSLMl8dXJ3jagcJcys3Zb4i1cQJFJXplAVe+/oudtrWhcA== Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:02:22 -0000 > So how would you express Babel's strengths in a single phrase? I'm not > particularly attached to the "hybrid network" formulation, but I don't see a > better wording. The problem is we need to find interesting use cases to get routing folk interested in working on the protocol -- ie, we have to find a niche it will fit in too and solve some set of problems that is larger than homenet or wireless/wired (or hybrid) networks. > (2) in overlay networks interconnecting servers over a mixture of wired > Ethernet and low- and high-latency tunnels ("distributed could"); Might be interesting, but I'm not certain where/how this applies. The only thing I can think of is possibly a mobile provider network with a virtual endpoint box in a DC connected to the handset or other wireless device. I'm not certain we'll get Verizon interested in this sort of thing, though, as BGP seems to be the "solution of the day" for most everything, and I'm not certain we want another control plane running in the overlay (it would be hard to justify). I was hoping to find more focused use cases that can be interesting, larg'ish scale, and cordoned off from the "rest of the world" in some sense. :-) Russ From nobody Thu Jan 14 09:10:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F7A1A21C3 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:10:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.151 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uDDsf0pkHLmT for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:10:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AE0F1A21C2 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0EHACtG028124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:13 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/56228) with ESMTP id u0EHACwU013302 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:12 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FB561FA1 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id h-RbdNyOc3KI for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from ijon.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2F7261F9D for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from jch (uid 1000) (envelope-from jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) id c000d0 by ijon.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (DragonFly Mail Agent v0.9); Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:10 +0100 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87mvs8jde5.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <021c01d14edc$8d2f6440$a78e2cc0$@gmail.com> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <034601d14cf4$d182b370$74881a50$@gmail.com> <87si221nv6.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <021c01d14edc$8d2f6440$a78e2cc0$@gmail.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:13 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:10:12 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5697D674.004 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5697D674.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5697D674.004 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5697D674.003 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5697D674.004 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5697D674.003 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:10:17 -0000 > The problem is we need to find interesting use cases to get routing folk > interested in working on the protocol -- ie, we have to find a niche it will > fit in too and solve some set of problems that is larger than homenet or > wireless/wired (or hybrid) networks. It looks like it's a huge niche to me -- every single network that uses a tunnel or a wireless link for transit is "hybrid" according to this definition. (It might not be fashionable with the routing people, but that doesn't make it any less important.) >> (2) in overlay networks interconnecting servers over a mixture of wired >> Ethernet and low- and high-latency tunnels ("distributed could"); > Might be interesting, but I'm not certain where/how this applies. https://www.erp5.com/NXD-re6st.Two.Page -- Juliusz From nobody Tue Jan 19 05:52:26 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F9181B2EDE for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:52:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4C6VEt3bWEtL for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFA1B1B2EDD for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0JDqI0G029201 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:52:18 GMT Received: from 950129200 (194.177-183-91.adsl-static.isp.belgacom.be [91.183.177.194] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0JDqBRt029169 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:52:14 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:52:10 -0000 Message-ID: <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJlDSLMl8dXJ3jagcJcys3Zb4i1cZ3bQFmg Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22074.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.486-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--16.486-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 9d2LtCNB3NJkOC/giEACzLiMC5wdwKqdzREuLjZ9i5qCsBeCv8CM/R4a es6vu9Dome7vSdcDtRRsOfleWwvKx7oyTDhk04gyylAqNTt8FdXJ5SXtoJPLyNP4VERwgkJMGeK Aa5WpyDu19T3v1Bw+JdPzWwTEpBnX6FG5slrMcr6WLCkl1lq7ByCxle5vSm4t0mAM2eipqloNjV EaowlGG7t0HBBhdtN1fKv8trBHf3N7JOYox5T0DTCaEJt46Pppt3aeg7g/usAutoY2UtFqGPHL8 fkEbKviX67bXaB48H2AvVtPQRhOd6Nkxxcwzhmb5TOYRxfcjG+jiNbvNIOD2dCojXo20d/QsyPc YASVAYQsJLXigQxgKUlfQxyo2FrhnilZbtTZDT65YHZkCjBFPSOSuAnftGqPfeHPnu31iHAErqz pg/UGWmAwzGlZDZumayfs+jFAAK1haj10i6TXQEK9qlwiTElfdZPoD9V2prSbKItl61J/ycnjLT A/UDoApPKClyoUSzyNo+PRbWqfRDsAVzN+Ov/sj/ViGfkTIP0UJAt429/Xzgi/pbsiVtWhcfZXu mf586jEvJhP0zUoLA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:52:24 -0000 I love routing protocols and playing with a "new " one could be great fun, but Ted nailed it when he said "What work needs to be done?" He might have added "And why do we need a WG to do that work?" A further key question for the proponents here (for example, at a BoF) is going to be: why do we ned another routing protocol? That is: what problem is Babel solving that both needs to be solved and is not already solved or could be solved by a minor mod to an existing protocol? Commercial answers to that question might be acceptable (e.g., "everyone wants a new protocol, so get over it"), but it should be clear that introducing new protocols into spaces where protocols already exist does not enhance interoperability even if it enhances market choice. Therefore some caution will be needed to scope the proposed deployment (as suggested in others' emails on this thread) both so that interop issues can be avoided and so that the protocol can be optimised for its intended environment. I suppose one last warning is needed for the supporters of Babel. Creating a WG will involve turning the protocol over to the community: all control of the protocol will be surrendered, and it may evolve in unexpected ways. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: babel [mailto:babel-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juliusz Chroboczek > Sent: 11 January 2016 17:34 > To: babel@ietf.org > Subject: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? > > Dear all, > > Sorry for the long silence, my teaching season has only just ended. > > I'll definitely be going to Buenos Aires, and I know that a number of > people interested in Babel will be going too. Hence, I think the very > least we can do would be to organise a Babel BoF at IETF 95. > > In an ideal world, however, we'd be able to set things up so that we can > create a "Low complexity distance-vector protocol for hybrid networks" > working group at Buenos Aires. I'm not sure how to proceed -- what is > required so we can create the working group straight away? > > - a proposed charter? > - jauge whether there is enough interest for a WG? > - a pair of chairs? > > So how do we proceed from here? > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel From nobody Tue Jan 19 07:33:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD751B3086 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:33:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8_qzgnDPphHb for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF081B3085 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF20DA0096; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:33:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([169.254.4.19]) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.235.67]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:33:03 -0800 From: Ted Lemon To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? Thread-Index: AQHRTJZQ+AVN6ulhhk6OvncPcJdqCZ8Dbh4A//+QJ2A= Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:33:02 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A106E1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>, <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [216.216.202.69] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:33:06 -0000 > I love routing protocols and playing with a "new " one could be great fun= , but > Ted nailed it when he said "What work needs to be done?" He might have ad= ded > "And why do we need a WG to do that work?" This is really a layer 9 issue. I don't think that the IETF will accept a= Babel proposed standard that is AD sponsored. I had a hard enough time g= etting depth-first forwarding through the IESG that way as an Experimental = document. > A further key question for the proponents here (for example, at a BoF) is= going > to be: why do we ned another routing protocol? That is: what problem is B= abel > solving that both needs to be solved and is not already solved or could b= e > solved by a minor mod to an existing protocol? This isn't really the correct question. We already have the routing proto= col we are discussing, and in a stronger sense than any similar competing r= outing protocol of which I am aware. E.g., you could perhaps argue that E= IGRP is a competing protocol, but there is no IETF standard describing it, = and efforts to make one failed (according to what I have been told, apologi= es if I got that wrong). The question is not "do we need it," and hasn't = been for some time. The question is, "is it in good enough shape." > Commercial answers to that question might be acceptable (e.g., "everyone = wants a > new protocol, so get over it"), but it should be clear that introducing n= ew > protocols into spaces where protocols already exist does not enhance > interoperability even if it enhances market choice. The decision taken by the Homenet working group is provisional, but definit= e. I believe it is sufficient motivation for doing the work, if there are= people interested in doing it. It would be harmful to reverse it for any= reason other than a genuine consensus that Babel actually won't work. > Therefore some caution will > be needed to scope the proposed deployment (as suggested in others' email= s on > this thread) both so that interop issues can be avoided and so that the p= rotocol > can be optimised for its intended environment. Yes, I think this is exactly right. Personally, I would prefer to see the= work start from the very constrained scope of the current proposed applica= tion (homenet) and only expand out of that scope if concrete proposals are = made and obtain consensus. > I suppose one last warning is needed for the supporters of Babel. Creatin= g a WG > will involve turning the protocol over to the community: all control of t= he > protocol will be surrendered, and it may evolve in unexpected ways. I think that as long as this is a constructive process and doesn't drive us= off into the weeds, that would be a very good thing. I think that the wo= rking group should be skeptical of gratuitous changes, but welcoming to use= ful improvements. BTW, participants in the homenet discussion may feel that there was a fair = amount of layer 9 activity. I don't think this layer 9 stuff comes out of= anybody trying to be deliberately obstructive--it seems to me in retrospec= t that there was a lot of talking past each other without realizing it. I= n order for this process to work, I think some patience will be required of= all participants, because I think there are definite language barriers. = If you feel like the person you're talking to is being obstructive, it's pr= obably worth trying to carefully unpack what they are saying before jumping= to conclusions. I suppose I say this as much for my benefit as anyone els= e's. :) From nobody Tue Jan 19 08:39:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB841B321E for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:39:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZBNKZzLm02YX for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:39:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EFCA1B3204 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:39:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0JGdpXw031857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:51 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/56228) with ESMTP id u0JGdpCv009697 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:51 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B05961F9A for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:51 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id 0jlxZmvwjQmi for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B274961FA7 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from jch (uid 1000) (envelope-from jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) id 680225 by trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (DragonFly Mail Agent v0.9); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:50 +0100 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: adrian@olddog.co.uk In-Reply-To: <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:51 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:39:51 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 569E66D7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 569E66D7.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 569E66D7.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 569E66D7.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 569E66D7.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 569E66D7.001 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:39:55 -0000 > A further key question for the proponents here (for example, at a BoF) is going > to be: why do we ned another routing protocol? We already have another routing protocol -- Babel is here to stay whether it gets standardised by the IETF or not. Babel is being used experimentally by the Homenet WG, Babel is being used in production by a number of community mesh networks, and Babel is being used in production by a number of startups. So the question is somewhat different -- do we need another standard, or is the current Experimental RFC good enough? Both the community networks and the startups are happy with the current standardisation status of Babel (reasonably complete and comprehensible experimental RFC with a rock-solid and well-maintained open-source reference implementation well integrated into OpenWRT). I probably wouldn't be trying for Standard Track if it weren't for Homenet. > That is: what problem is Babel solving that both needs to be solved and > is not already solved or could be solved by a minor mod to an existing > protocol? A sea of electronic ink has been expended on this question in the Homenet WG. > Therefore some caution will be needed to scope the proposed deployment Adrian, we're not "proposing deployment", we're deploying right now. The question is not whether to deploy, the question is whether to standardise. > Creating a WG will involve turning the protocol over to the community: > all control of the protocol will be surrendered, and it may evolve in > unexpected ways. We're trying very hard to be part of both the IETF community and the community that's currently deploying Babel. Obviously, being part of two mostly disjoint communities can lead to friction, we'll need to be careful to meet the needs of both. -- Juliusz From nobody Thu Jan 21 04:14:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AA21ACEC6 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:14:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0WoVat88XjkB for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com (sender163-mail.zoho.com [74.201.84.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACA711ACDFB for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1453378456195153.50018329533577; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:14:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:14:16 +0000 From: Denis Ovsienko To: Message-ID: <152641b4a4f.cd8a6e2a154120.1226246941102702416@ovsienko.info> In-Reply-To: <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: Normal User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:14:27 -0000 ---- On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:52:10 +0000 Adrian Farrel wrote ---- > I love routing protocols and playing with a "new " one could be great fun, but > Ted nailed it when he said "What work needs to be done?" He might have added > "And why do we need a WG to do that work?" [...] Hello all. My own interpretation is that an already existing informal goal of the already existing informal working group is to study the potential gain of applying the Babel protocol solution space to new problem spaces as for mesh networks it is already delivering the intended results. I understand different people may disagree whether this goal statement is particular enough for an IETF working group charter, though experienced engineers may agree that fully formalizing a development work is one thing and actually getting it done is at times another. I am personally happy with any form of working group that keeps it a good research and development group. -- Denis Ovsienko From nobody Tue Jan 26 12:38:11 2016 Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com> X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF51D1B2D2B for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:38:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id flXx5TfQA4-f for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:38:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yk0-x22e.google.com (mail-yk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEC761B2D3F for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id a85so215147157ykb.1 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:38:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=w4v7JKT38Pnq7vCpS7pHQAimuyevgO8t3JzN3+FNwiY=; b=Kh2Lordd4D0gp5or6V3sabQVKFooPlhmmcwHpK20nh+r8lfFsMROy0X6tljewODK5+ ZhSl9Ceq49+5/yK1ANnQkSM0DlMN3aEfNAazFOtGkyWxLDE5cmxZ8TEwq9W6+90Dg2/S AsXZAC0kQQpkmB5PJj275hVg5wvbnoCASoWvvAPco6WK2a8+dcXsJsDilFOvPwSMeZWn YxXRLeg5Shbu9Vx6Drk66lwE+8pff8+9cQvCYhyWXLxf6m3SOk00QRPbWpl1Bt5LnR8f OCZzk5cNZ3svTEr8GQShBLd0JhROK6pUFfWmtuMUy3l5FM6Je5Sskj+aW3f58izdgNe9 +9hA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :thread-index:content-language; bh=w4v7JKT38Pnq7vCpS7pHQAimuyevgO8t3JzN3+FNwiY=; b=fFVW0vP/DS1AvvH3H8AomMSMGFSDUGFdLJcVJaOZ5QDsr3s0I0c6WSd6R/hG9mRaXX kphko+Zg28npO7E3zFIH91msB8nuaGf1HqiuONr9FPXLRa0gbg2rceXGwot67rx3IoMW FYu3Nf5CAl72Q6Y2C2IJgxul5GqThMgEcKMgpJGFYvt8n4tAjpitMJe/RyMTvKmvAw6e Vj5e+/rwcIF+2z95BAiE3mEb99jscHeSz9I1KFZBtj5KDlul28ajLtELJUiRHeqXOGUZ 2F733cBsERcOTBUiMtsykh/VhH02x0NGa1baNIW/Mp9RClA9K+uvZMMRarwm9XdmAjCd vtVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTtxnwpyI+ki7WHOQuBHIXl5/bXwzomBy49WVcBAQdHMd5DZ1TXH2l2nM+X7qXcUg== X-Received: by 10.37.69.8 with SMTP id s8mr12370642yba.120.1453840684014; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from Russ (ip-64-134-179-66.public.wayport.net. [64.134.179.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 193sm2154102ywe.22.2016.01.26.12.38.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:38:03 -0800 (PST) From: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" , References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:37:54 -0500 Message-ID: <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQJlDSLMl8dXJ3jagcJcys3Zb4i1cQEk5ytSAipH/zydzF1WAA== Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:38:09 -0000 > We already have another routing protocol -- Babel is here to stay whether it > gets standardised by the IETF or not. Babel is being used experimentally by > the Homenet WG, Babel is being used in production by a number of > community mesh networks, and Babel is being used in production by a > number of startups. Which again begs the question -- what is the point here? 1. To get more routing folks involved in BABEL? 2. To expand the scope of BABEL? 3. To keep its scope, form, application, etc., the same, and just ask for an RFC number so it's all "official?" We can't form a WG based on, "we'd like one." There has to be a reason to do the work (what new thing is being done that's not already done?"), and there has to be interest in doing it from a broad enough community to spread the work around and "make it happen." Given the perception is that the "mesh networking problem" is "solved," what's left to do? We really need an answer to that question before we can build a WG. I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to actually figure out what the point is -- WG's with no goal and no community don't do well. It's just a matter of history, no matter how much we might like it to be different. Hence my original set of suggestions -- make it a distance vector working group to look at DFS numbering systems, EIGRP, and BABEL. Or expand the scope of BABEL to something the community is already interested in. For homenet, I couldn't get the folks who actually make this gear to even answer my emails (not even to say "I'm not interested")... Which implies there's not a lot of real interest from the folks making gear that will operate in that space to participate. This doesn't seem to imply there's enough interest to find the people needed to actually do the work (don't underestimate the amount of work involved in running a WG -- and the problems involved in having too few people to actually review documents, etc.). :-) Russ From nobody Tue Jan 26 12:50:49 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71681B3117 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:50:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AbRBqKpTJFaZ for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AFE71A9068 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-x233.google.com with SMTP id ba1so153492348obb.3 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:50:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8MK39Jk5WtiIOiO0He7t8Nid9MHwk3KsYgt8nS5e9zY=; b=muC6PTXUsTpKVH6b7fRLEPWbxrtvPQ0ro9h4ZQxx0JbQjAqfLPfE+MXMaLF5BKmNDm 0Mz44dgFBnCQ85JAAm66X6QrZinoXIxJWyOn1xDSEHkPo1MRgNLkaqQuhP99YzbSwuIi 1u/LJEBVnuS2gD7fVKs4A463BEeYLxPSglMb1tH2AZjjEIkLI2GqerFvZbhiPStfCKMc rVRxhhmlM4b2/xYE/ZwTC5FyuhqtyC/EVwb1U9c9FXG8oAp38DfzE+/gu4X2tKpAxzpy TGMElg7FHTGMvwFT+L+LLBoQIZvitJhkvXIgh2TySC69oir57X6y7bqgRoWj0c9JUIPB RxWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8MK39Jk5WtiIOiO0He7t8Nid9MHwk3KsYgt8nS5e9zY=; b=R1ZryboVwYc/CSMyluhqH85ON5WkZlUh8n5pzDyaoXArqN9bqTDrswApx5o5w6LwMx CY3D7HIm8JQjkNjzy4aIfZdonCoP+4sZ0dJlWdyYzlRdrIdzKmrb65U3hx4CwaU356u0 8Bk5VoQt0H4AOxGj35SVEGXJxbLllYJWOmE1HPPqpw3If7sLqGyM48NNo5MPg3BGCBTN /u3H9fQW5VESLVEBWlqfj8wNhp+RmPeL4kg8SQ4vo8387ez07XnC+hLBhmavaY/WWGZQ 0h+Ibn7zS17dcebogYL8VCI86qCeJPtT8jo5Od5TRuPIC8LVdNtdmq8EAJxZFx9YV4NL evSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORs4Zj+gagGw/OKzIvNqWkV7WDyPJRXeNOn/tbQTXAyjgtpPA2HuidDU7y452+9VrmtkO9wKYSIYKeYjA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.232.42 with SMTP id tl10mr20074686oec.69.1453841446541; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:50:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.79.83 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:50:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:50:46 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Russ White <7riw77@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, babel@ietf.org, Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:50:48 -0000 On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Russ White <7riw77@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We already have another routing protocol -- Babel is here to stay whether > it >> gets standardised by the IETF or not. Babel is being used experimentally > by >> the Homenet WG, Babel is being used in production by a number of >> community mesh networks, and Babel is being used in production by a >> number of startups. > > Which again begs the question -- what is the point here? > > 1. To get more routing folks involved in BABEL? > 2. To expand the scope of BABEL? > 3. To keep its scope, form, application, etc., the same, and just ask for an > RFC number so it's all "official?" > > We can't form a WG based on, "we'd like one." There has to be a reason to do > the work (what new thing is being done that's not already done?"), and there > has to be interest in doing it from a broad enough community to spread the > work around and "make it happen." Given the perception is that the "mesh > networking problem" is "solved," what's left to do? > > We really need an answer to that question before we can build a WG. I'm not > trying to be a pain, just trying to actually figure out what the point is -- > WG's with no goal and no community don't do well. It's just a matter of > history, no matter how much we might like it to be different. > > Hence my original set of suggestions -- make it a distance vector working > group to look at DFS numbering systems, EIGRP, and BABEL. Or expand the > scope of BABEL to something the community is already interested in. For > homenet, I couldn't get the folks who actually make this gear to even answer > my emails (not even to say "I'm not interested")... Which implies there's > not a lot of real interest from the folks making gear that will operate in > that space to participate. This doesn't seem to imply there's enough I have seen nearly zero interest from anyone "making gear" in the homenet wg's outputs, not just the babel component of it. As for me, I have nearly given up participating in ietf processes entirely. > interest to find the people needed to actually do the work (don't > underestimate the amount of work involved in running a WG -- and the > problems involved in having too few people to actually review documents, > etc.). > > :-) > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel From nobody Tue Jan 26 12:58:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BEA1B3138 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:58:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N-wF6GchuQpq for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC7611B3137 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E9025F2B0; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1453841916; bh=l8EDqxYR8ekujsVkvNuynlDlVV/21rhVvZiBXW+JpBU=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ds1qHRLvcuIM49/ICQlNbMuAAUkWyFomLur3uRzzx6eJESFTDZ7BN/R8TTgZx3cwg B6/AIPh+IXvPv6V3bnzH7V6fEHd4wZezxXELDkCTWbTXV6bR0KZ5B8xCC70bdUo42G zo1l6cv0a0VrEAKkZA+nt3VcPzBAzwjnErkC5JpU= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E91925F2B2; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) To: Russ White <7riw77@gmail.com>, 'Juliusz Chroboczek' , adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <56A7DDEF.5050406@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:58:23 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:58:38 -0000 At least from where I sit, the point would be to address those open issues that are keeping Babel considered experimental rather than Proposed Standard. Having a working group to create a new DV protocol seems likely to be interesting, fun, and a complete waste of time. Addressing minor points, like incorporating the security elements and agreeing on the most useful default metric size, seems to have value. We could also work on explaining better why folks are finding Babel useful, so that the work is not dependent upon a few people be3ing able to explain it well. Yours, Joel On 1/26/16 3:37 PM, Russ White wrote: > >> We already have another routing protocol -- Babel is here to stay whether > it >> gets standardised by the IETF or not. Babel is being used experimentally > by >> the Homenet WG, Babel is being used in production by a number of >> community mesh networks, and Babel is being used in production by a >> number of startups. > > Which again begs the question -- what is the point here? > > 1. To get more routing folks involved in BABEL? > 2. To expand the scope of BABEL? > 3. To keep its scope, form, application, etc., the same, and just ask for an > RFC number so it's all "official?" > > We can't form a WG based on, "we'd like one." There has to be a reason to do > the work (what new thing is being done that's not already done?"), and there > has to be interest in doing it from a broad enough community to spread the > work around and "make it happen." Given the perception is that the "mesh > networking problem" is "solved," what's left to do? > > We really need an answer to that question before we can build a WG. I'm not > trying to be a pain, just trying to actually figure out what the point is -- > WG's with no goal and no community don't do well. It's just a matter of > history, no matter how much we might like it to be different. > > Hence my original set of suggestions -- make it a distance vector working > group to look at DFS numbering systems, EIGRP, and BABEL. Or expand the > scope of BABEL to something the community is already interested in. For > homenet, I couldn't get the folks who actually make this gear to even answer > my emails (not even to say "I'm not interested")... Which implies there's > not a lot of real interest from the folks making gear that will operate in > that space to participate. This doesn't seem to imply there's enough > interest to find the people needed to actually do the work (don't > underestimate the amount of work involved in running a WG -- and the > problems involved in having too few people to actually review documents, > etc.). > > :-) > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > From nobody Tue Jan 26 23:57:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE9F1B3559 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:57:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63MPG_Fd7K2E for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:57:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 804D81B3556 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:57:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0R7viGJ014007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:45 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/56228) with ESMTP id u0R7viC7023585; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:44 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA3761FFF; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:44 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id ZHd0dyHWpBJ9; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFEDF61FFC; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:42 +0100 Message-ID: <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:45 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:44 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 56A87878.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 56A87878.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 56A87878.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 56A87878.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 56A87878.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 56A87878.001 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:57:49 -0000 > Which again begs the question -- what is the point here? To write a revised RFC for Babel. Babel is one of the rare non-standard routing protocols that has been entirely described and has three independent, open source implementations. While RFC 6126 serves us well (in great part thanks to Joel's input), there's a need for a 6126-bis that clarifies a few issues and integrates RFC 7557 (the extension mechanism). 6126-bis could be another individual submission, but some people appear to prefer a Standards Track document. (The above should not be taken to imply that the 6126-bis must be compatible with 6126, although making the new protocol incompatible should not be done without careful consideration.) > There has to be a reason to do the work (what new thing is being done > that's not already done?"), Please let me know if the above answers this question. > Given the perception is that the "mesh networking problem" is "solved," > what's left to do? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there's no IETF protocol that can deal efficiently with both prefix-based and meshy routing in a single routing domain (the mesh extensions to OSPF have been abandoned, AFAIK). I also believe that there's no Standards Track protocol that can deal with a mixture of good and bad links without manual configuration (Henning's DAT metric is Experimental, and David's extensions to IS-IS haven't been written down). > Hence my original set of suggestions -- make it a distance vector working > group to look at DFS numbering systems, EIGRP, and BABEL. Russ, I like EIGRP very much, and I can certainly relate to your wish to revive it. However, I'm not sure that trying to ride Babel's coattails is the most productive way to do so. (If you're serious about reviving EIGRP -- producing an open-source reference implementation would be a good start.) -- Juliusz From nobody Wed Jan 27 12:33:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117311A9119 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:33:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCGFzxh3yWHq for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152C91A9116 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:33:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1453926824; bh=J8/AjoZA1+BSaZgwAIJASqHVrSK5TiSajpUHirTwwRc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=F8YI+PwKetA+qvjVL2nQF+qRvtqd1xkZBG1jfjWM+K2/75g1yrKXLCIwQrVG+OjDV 0PUjx8qqcrS6orN9cFJjqNB/RMtHrw6oh/joSZl6mD1Pufa/fQXS6z/beIWtmpttI8 qd+9J9axG1AXluEHPK4DPxyZDZL3RqZ+EyBFH340= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2FE955E1C19; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:33:43 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Juliusz Chroboczek References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:33:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> (Juliusz Chroboczek's message of "Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:57:42 +0100") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87vb6esqxk.fsf@alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org, Russ White <7riw77@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:33:50 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> Which again begs the question -- what is the point here? > > To write a revised RFC for Babel. > > Babel is one of the rare non-standard routing protocols that has been > entirely described and has three independent, open source > implementations. While RFC 6126 serves us well (in great part thanks > to Joel's input), there's a need for a 6126-bis that clarifies a few > issues and integrates RFC 7557 (the extension mechanism). 6126-bis > could be another individual submission, but some people appear to > prefer a Standards Track document. +1 on making this a working group standards track document. While doing interoperability-testing between different implementations, we have run into a couple of things that could use clarification (though they are fairly minor in the greater scheme of things). I believe the input of a working group is valuable in this process, and am definitely interested in participating in this myself (and will also be going to Buenos Aires). Besides, no one says it has to be a Herculean effort spanning decades... -Toke From nobody Wed Jan 27 13:15:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0D61ACF24 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:15:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrWKvSNGCl8G for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:15:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2063D1ACF57 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:15:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-x235.google.com with SMTP id vt7so18757464obb.1 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:15:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=i9V/3k1/3pT7nVCKgbsrYJ7ZGRuv91+focBOFXg3kVs=; b=c5T4Ey5XWGEX6mBxLDKmEECCiLWPQbLE+cdmHpMnssMdtUKUCsFU41GfYK5YxQD7vk UGrcZVt3GaV6wDWHaOUTV6ZwFoAKvU5UGfzcMeY3n2B3BeT8FlOrzehdxnNO4bL5D+D9 1ba1Up4FjrkDnVWDYvvkVkVvVeASWSUYeco6PCQVqeKeH8mBt+A7mG2zjaqZxLO9bgfO RqDgi/myAJLVunjAV8WLuDepEN6C8mNOFMlVq4lV6me/ZGp67NzOEC5mGrGpRl2br5wa 47KUKSwypYqqmOznTw5oU7dgKaGm+ZECxnyx9T9QONjBTdOFrwahtRywCMMkGXiNmMoT VWlQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=i9V/3k1/3pT7nVCKgbsrYJ7ZGRuv91+focBOFXg3kVs=; b=S+qbGPNuNDDKWj4Sy5YHzF9QWwmZWQMm6owXxb3r0zeaxabPnAfElylcs4oVvVCA5p jktUad7PwfCHZtT1Ais/fnLlN483gbzL+ByMDdfXpTbF88a0u/DfAyhjpWNcyvSZhys8 x3HEL+njtoIC1bDw3XOW8+Ww1kusULxgUIoQE9QUFIQ/1t/w4v06K/bz/wKfphr/3X1j sSySLkXqkLJlTaLs1Jc91e0UpalBmMf9Dq+PCt4kKMXzhHkcTZjj2dA75B2XS83XYvp2 +l5IO5Px1MDcl8T6d34ZxrRD1gtCv/WTJKWxPehCFlONCQazJM7ZWfh1VNrMTg6a8Ojd eSdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQEvWZqHLVTMPmm0EpqsTSSil+15/WouxSrKJy1LJwr20HOUNgAa6pKbCSgcxXF5Oyhed+0uqTTV23CXg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.117.102 with SMTP id kd6mr23720466oeb.73.1453929328491; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:15:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.54.162 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:15:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87vb6esqxk.fsf@alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <87vb6esqxk.fsf@alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:15:28 -0500 Message-ID: From: Alia Atlas To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b417e632744d6052a574d1b Archived-At: Cc: Russ White <7riw77@gmail.com>, babel@ietf.org, Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:15:31 -0000 --047d7b417e632744d6052a574d1b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I certainly hope that it wouldn't be a Herculean effort spanning decades :-= ) To me, there are two large open questions. The first is what is the applicability or need and work to be done. While those in the mesh-networking world may have a very clear idea of why OSPF, ISIS, RIP, etc. don't work, clearly describing the requirements and applicability is necessary. From that and existing deployments, it sounds like one piece of work is improving RFC 612= 6 so that it is of the quality and has the review to go standards track. Nailing down the applicability/requirements and a first list of extensions and improvements or issues into one or two drafts would be a good first step. The second open question is whether there is a community that is willing an= d able to do the work. That work can be done on the mailing list; it can be done at IETF and at interim meetings elsewhere as appropriate. Without people to do the work, a WG will fail. The BoF deadline is soon. If there's real interest for Buenos Aires, moving to a list of what documents to write and who is going to write them would seem to me to be a useful first step. Joel, Margaret, Russ, and Ted all have a good amount of IETF experience as far as process and the types of questions that get asked. They are all being personally motivated to help; the suggestions are to try and get to a functionally community with a clearly defined and needed task. That's what can turn into a WG. Personally, I do not see the goal as a distance-vector IGP Working Group. It could be interesting to consider if there are features from other protocols that might be needed in Babel for particular use-cases - but that is very different. Beauty competitions among technologies are rarely pretty or useful. Regards, Alia On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > > >> Which again begs the question -- what is the point here? > > > > To write a revised RFC for Babel. > > > > Babel is one of the rare non-standard routing protocols that has been > > entirely described and has three independent, open source > > implementations. While RFC 6126 serves us well (in great part thanks > > to Joel's input), there's a need for a 6126-bis that clarifies a few > > issues and integrates RFC 7557 (the extension mechanism). 6126-bis > > could be another individual submission, but some people appear to > > prefer a Standards Track document. > > +1 on making this a working group standards track document. > > While doing interoperability-testing between different implementations, > we have run into a couple of things that could use clarification (though > they are fairly minor in the greater scheme of things). I believe the > input of a working group is valuable in this process, and am definitely > interested in participating in this myself (and will also be going to > Buenos Aires). > > Besides, no one says it has to be a Herculean effort spanning decades... > > -Toke > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > --047d7b417e632744d6052a574d1b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I certainly hope that it wouldn't be a Herculean effor= t spanning decades :-)

To me, there are two large open q= uestions.=C2=A0 The first is what is the applicability
or need an= d work to be done.=C2=A0 While those in the mesh-networking world
may have a very clear idea of why OSPF, ISIS, RIP, etc. don't work, cl= early
describing the requirements and applicability is necessary.= =C2=A0 From that and
existing deployments, it sounds like one pie= ce of work is improving RFC 6126
so that it is of the quality and= has the review to go standards track.=C2=A0 Nailing
down the app= licability/requirements and a first list of extensions and improvements
or issues into one or two drafts would be a good first step.

The second open question is whether there is a community = that is willing and
able to do the work.=C2=A0 That work can be d= one on the mailing list; it can be done
at IETF and at interim me= etings elsewhere as appropriate.=C2=A0 Without people to do=C2=A0
the work, a WG will fail.=C2=A0

The BoF deadline = is soon.=C2=A0 If there's real interest for Buenos Aires, moving to a l= ist
of what documents to write and who is going to write them wou= ld seem to me to
be a useful first step.

Joel, Margaret, Russ, and Ted all have a good amount of IETF experience as= far
as process and the types of questions that get asked.=C2=A0 = They are all being personally
motivated to help; the suggestions = are to try and get to a functionally community
with a clearly def= ined and needed task.=C2=A0 That's what can turn into a WG.
<= br>
Personally, I do not see the goal as a distance-vector IGP Wo= rking Group.=C2=A0 It could
be interesting to consider if there a= re features from other protocols that might be=C2=A0
needed in Ba= bel for particular use-cases - but that is very different.=C2=A0 Beauty com= petitions
among technologies are rarely pretty or useful.

Regards,
Alia

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Toke H= =C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> write= s:

>> Which again begs the question -- what is the point here?
>
> To write a revised RFC for Babel.
>
> Babel is one of the rare non-standard routing protocols that has been<= br> > entirely described and has three independent, open source
> implementations. While RFC 6126 serves us well (in great part thanks > to Joel's input), there's a need for a 6126-bis that clarifies= a few
> issues and integrates RFC 7557 (the extension mechanism). 6126-bis
> could be another individual submission, but some people appear to
> prefer a Standards Track document.

+1 on making this a working group standards track document.

While doing interoperability-testing between different implementations,
we have run into a couple of things that could use clarification (though they are fairly minor in the greater scheme of things). I believe the
input of a working group is valuable in this process, and am definitely
interested in participating in this myself (and will also be going to
Buenos Aires).

Besides, no one says it has to be a Herculean effort spanning decades...
-Toke

_______________________________________________
babel mailing list
babel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel

--047d7b417e632744d6052a574d1b-- From nobody Thu Jan 28 08:34:35 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28E61B2D90 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:34:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8d-DqWVxbjz for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:34:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FDF81B2D9B for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:34:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0SGY9aF017913 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:09 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FC961FA1 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:09 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id jGdf__cN6l1G for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6D0C61FA5 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aOpWI-00061N-M3 for babel@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:06 +0100 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:06 +0100 Message-ID: <7i8u391x4x.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "babel@ietf.org" User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:09 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 56AA4301.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 56AA4301.002 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 56AA4301.002 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Proposed Babel BoF description X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:34:34 -0000 Thanks to all who participated in the previous discussion. Thanks in particular to Russ, whose pointed questions helped a lot with clarifying things. Here's a very first draft, berely proof-read, of a BoF description. I haven't discussed it with anyone yet, so everything is negotiable at this stage -- please let me know if you think I'm completely off. Pro memoria, we'll need to be sending a formal proposal before Friday 19th February. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Babel is a loop-avoiding distance vector protocol that has good provisions for dynamically computed metrics and remains robust even in the presence of metric oscillations and failure of transitivity. Babel has seen some production deployment, notably in hybrid networks (networks that combine classical, wired parts with meshy bits) and in global overlay networks (networks built out of large numbers of tunnels spanning continents). Babel is also a required part of the IETF Homenet protocol stack. There exist three independent implementations of Babel, all of which are open source. The core of the Babel protocol is described in detail in RFCs 6126 and 7557, which are both Experimental. While these RFCs have served us well (as indicated by the independent reimplementations of Babel), a number of parties have expressed a desire to have a "RFC 6126-bis", which would clarify RFC 6126 and integrate the contents of RFC 7557 without expanding the scope of Babel. Hopefully, this RFC 6126-bis can be a Standards Track document. The goal of this BoF is to establish a working group that will write the successor to RFC 6126 and 7557. The working group will have to decide whether the new protocol is backwards compatible with RFC 6126, or whether it is merely compatible with the spirit of Babel. It should then proceed to write a new specification based on RFC 6126 as well as an applicability statement. Security issues must be considered, perhaps based on RFC 7298. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Thu Jan 28 08:54:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269191A8AED for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:54:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.15 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4aGZqzDOWuJt for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:54:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C86D01A89F6 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:54:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0SGsj1N004325; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:54:45 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F140961FA2; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:54:44 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id C-f5V4emr8gO; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:54:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 227A161FA1; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:54:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aOpqE-00062X-Sp; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:54:43 +0100 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:54:42 +0100 Message-ID: <7i60yd1w6l.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Alia Atlas In-Reply-To: References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <87vb6esqxk.fsf@alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:54:45 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 56AA47D5.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 56AA47D5.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 56AA47D5.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:54:48 -0000 > To me, there are two large open questions. The first is what is the > applicability or need and work to be done. That's two questions :-) I agree that I'll need to write a proper applicability document. Last time I tried, I ended up with https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chroboczek-babel-doesnt-care which a number of people found entertaining but perhaps overly flippant. I have good hope that Section 1.1 of this document could serve as the basis for a formal (and boring) applicability statement. > While those in the mesh-networking world may have a very clear idea of > why OSPF, ISIS, RIP, etc. don't work, clearly describing the > requirements and applicability is necessary. Right. Please see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the Doesn't Care draft, and let me know if that's a suitable basis. > The second open question is whether there is a community that is willing > and able to do the work. Yes, there is, although as you guessed many of us cannot afford the time and expense of going to IETF meetings. We are quite used to working over mailing lists. > Personally, I do not see the goal as a distance-vector IGP Working Group. > It could be interesting to consider if there are features from other > protocols that might be needed in Babel for particular use-cases - but > that is very different. I'm going to fight tooth and nail against extending the core protocol -- any extensions should go into protocol extensions. On the other hand, I think the extension mechanism could be made more powerful. > Beauty competitions among technologies are rarely pretty or useful. Very well put. Thanks for your input, -- Juliusz From nobody Thu Jan 28 09:07:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF6A1A89AA for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:07:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.15 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GywGohagZMz5 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:07:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C0141A89A2 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:07:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0SH7Hv1013539 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:07:17 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A45861FA1 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:07:17 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id dlwGz8sUrWFw for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:07:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EB4F61FA3 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:07:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aOq2M-00066p-Gs for babel@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:07:14 +0100 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:07:14 +0100 Message-ID: <7i37th1vlp.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:07:17 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 56AA4AC5.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 56AA4AC5.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 56AA4AC5.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Last summer's Babel talk X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:07:20 -0000 By the way, if some people need more info about what Babel does and how it does it, there's one microcentury-long (52 min) talk on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zMDLVln3XM If you cannot afford a microcentury, the slides are on http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~jch/software/babel/babel-20150804.pdf -- Juliusz From nobody Sat Jan 30 17:40:46 2016 Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com> X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238DB1B3D8A for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:40:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJurdP2IrGW9 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 169EF1A90BA for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id ik10so14240264igb.1 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:40:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=5Yr/3r+mn92si6X/edZohQJFg0yND+7ceypgVHz2vIw=; b=00WAGC0Pb87Q8oX3ZVOBCaFGqyP+y7SJHWaHIly/40gadOTeD4VJeaAyqoEwk+F70s WRJxsvuO51/RZ9FVgiKUgrUUhe6K5uRkKiu+ptFyhf30azfhnUcKH2EbiuE5uLnMhwke Dkz7e2bH6DIm8WiT9wdbBN87c8G4KZTJo6QEulJyPH0ynVmDOOmclVCV3NAE0WxXANll mnEGdx9KwMxwMlZBmgeY4ofkxFTqt3EcS0J69u60kB1qBqmMK6C7rQ1TIEEIx6dvGt6F qp9pSaHfblu4SlAZugwbRZeqAsHOuaNsOfR4LxOLD4EzrDN3SnfwsEq7muSHab3M4eIq pBzA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :thread-index:content-language; bh=5Yr/3r+mn92si6X/edZohQJFg0yND+7ceypgVHz2vIw=; b=MXsM277p7blCWJjxJSNiaDFmQl3RhNr3E7MuP1BSg2EscDJQ41JxwGcGeStd9/JOKQ Tjaf251BHo2Tl+Q2yruB0IoEcHTi3pCVdGPxrNWm8PXOOTWm6cbq6AdweeNy3O2WYSGr z0Ym6cxCKwwFcCHyhO3WcZ8L5eo1f/ZCyrONng2qgM2UT5az1+Br1hbzeytu+T70oH6o 0NaTQiWSnrJtaBRPYzrltDvgIDY97t+7qwf2LKs5TxvY5lThb1tADMYfymOxlSIdoqdX inrx61sib5ntZEIFpF8IsmnoJa2Qsbo8XmOj7xYigvDo5kqtc9hWHDQgXZ5l9T4d+/ts 6blw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOR4kfr0Rw6QFBz7iJld2dGcG3G5Q+i6PX6mrdMbvzmHSmMQzQCcFe+9qAh8J/Ueag== X-Received: by 10.50.78.234 with SMTP id e10mr4210685igx.7.1454204443532; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from Russ (162-229-180-77.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net. [162.229.180.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98sm1444075iot.27.2016.01.30.17.40.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:40:39 -0500 Message-ID: <023701d15bc8$63fe6be0$2bfb43a0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQJlDSLMl8dXJ3jagcJcys3Zb4i1cQEk5ytSAipH/zwBVx2iOQIlVB6qnbcXwuA= Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 01:40:45 -0000 > Babel is one of the rare non-standard routing protocols that has been > entirely described and has three independent, open source > implementations. Two points -- - It's actually not. There are a number of others. - This isn't about building a new RFC -- having a working group isn't about building a new RFC, ever, really. It's about helping organize a community of people interested in a particular line of work. I don't see a community. We could try to expand the scope to create a community, or we could continue limping along the way we are. Creating a working group to work on a single RFC update, when there's no real community for an ongoing commitment to expanding the scope and usefulness of the protocol -- I don't see where that goes. > > Hence my original set of suggestions -- make it a distance vector > > working group to look at DFS numbering systems, EIGRP, and BABEL. > > Russ, I like EIGRP very much, and I can certainly relate to your wish to revive > it. However, I'm not sure that trying to ride Babel's coattails is the most > productive way to do so. *sigh* It's not about coattails -- it's about finding enough work that's interesting to actually build a community. Again, working groups are communities. We can call four people with a single RFC to modify a working group, I guess, but it's not really the way the process is designed to run. FYI, there is an open source implementation of EIGRP out there -- check git. But my statement was more general, rather than specific. I'm not trying to revive anything, I'm just trying to find some community that's actually interested enough in the work to sustain an actual working group. :-) Russ From nobody Sun Jan 31 06:30:48 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0BA1AD362 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 06:30:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.15 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OTmS2bd3cFAv for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 06:30:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 000221AD360 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 06:30:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u0VEUg90001518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:30:42 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/56228) with ESMTP id u0VEUgFh002892; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:30:42 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1385D61FA2; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:30:42 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id uLOSmYBED_q4; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:30:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 542BA61FA1; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:30:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:30:42 +0100 Message-ID: <87zivlzur1.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <023701d15bc8$63fe6be0$2bfb43a0$@gmail.com> References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <023701d15bc8$63fe6be0$2bfb43a0$@gmail.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:30:42 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:30:42 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 56AE1A92.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 56AE1A92.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 56AE1A92.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 56AE1A92.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 56AE1A92.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 56AE1A92.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 14:30:46 -0000 >> Babel is one of the rare non-standard routing protocols that has been >> entirely described and has three independent, open source implementations. > - It's actually not. There are a number of others. You've certainly caught my attention. Which protocol do you have in mind? > - This isn't about building a new RFC -- having a working group isn't about > building a new RFC, ever, really. It's about helping organize a community of > people interested in a particular line of work. I don't see a community. We > could try to expand the scope to create a community, or we could continue > limping along the way we are. Right, I see where you're coming from. I still think it's a dangerous proposition -- I'd feel much more comfortable starting with a highly focused WG, chartered to do something that we have a chance of achieving within a few months, and only consider expanding the scope after our initial success. As Alia put it, if we're not focused enough, we risk getting into a "protocol beauty contest". > FYI, there is an open source implementation of EIGRP out there Yes! (And it's almost a year old -- I wish I had gotten my grubby hands on the code earlier. If you'll please excuse me, I've got some reading to do.) -- Juliusz From nobody Sun Jan 31 07:22:55 2016 Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com> X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510E81B2A6C for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 07:22:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zbzuCFov6V6Y for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 07:22:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yk0-x230.google.com (mail-yk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A14B71B2A6D for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 07:22:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id z13so21582654ykd.0 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 07:22:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=hhS41wBoy6wUbSL6SGewFKdvey7O1MyyIbYnsCFk1oY=; b=ZM8PIvCZQKQspI39SNV4fT34iHhwenVinPIqYTvJHcKJeL/EEWjxCX5LIXj0WNRRvc a1Y87zNRwIRWWKV6pCV/fUMZeQBfTxI2wIcQeYI5t9hBv/U8+dXC9o6cH4VclnXykgPh 3qLczzIIM/PnibGoOwjFLHD6uTk/D0LRZWH7hmM+Jj8buDcPpvZsdn44Rduqjuz15008 OS4+p9vXDk5xq8l7OOMDp9RIuIWQQoS9kOM8xMuawLSiDDYVZtSMlep08bzVsJk4OJwr blj179fQwQESJJlDwM3mA3VvFAXmmu7Na9eq/0Yipo8bVDVd4/fmu51zalxxFJLqrQ6s Sbtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :thread-index:content-language; bh=hhS41wBoy6wUbSL6SGewFKdvey7O1MyyIbYnsCFk1oY=; b=SN9QjAofoon7ina3kbgAmrYHp0QP+sFqJTKZFNdj6wbzIe9+3d3ak5Bvq3ma7Jb0v8 Nh/d5NWou/UorMRzHyhBeUIFap4hioLLua+aGV/QToEGx18MfM7va8lJrt4SxyDYM17r 67l3FKoaLYKOews1NpDkmMFj0pJeHJ4a92i7xUqu105rvIeC6xl1/fd223miO7UYSNQV NJnEFe1WUEBaJXOhXK689FJD2Er9c/87sP5qYVB7VXE+kXMTJwXVqSbIBtmGLeZctnPe C8LsxLUpVb3IvTd1NdQDfU9vFwxMcHM4q49HF3JgXzMOeuzma/G2HNwGrxys4jMo3ice VzZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQPhbEWdwesKF3y4rfxUBJ7mO1jpiUqKbLddflw6lsp96owvkcx2QdPD1lyNwd4BQ== X-Received: by 10.37.43.136 with SMTP id r130mr9881688ybr.4.1454253771905; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 07:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from Russ ([2602:30a:2e5b:44d0:80f:b51a:2cc9:a52e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l4sm18809939ywb.21.2016.01.31.07.22.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Jan 2016 07:22:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" References: <7ia8oc81gu.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <00fa01d152c0$9be4b2f0$d3ae18d0$@olddog.co.uk> <87mvs1frqh.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <014f01d15879$713fd1b0$53bf7510$@gmail.com> <87vb6f8nex.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <023701d15bc8$63fe6be0$2bfb43a0$@gmail.com> <87zivlzur1.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <87zivlzur1.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 10:22:47 -0500 Message-ID: <002d01d15c3b$3dd1a3b0$b974eb10$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQJlDSLMl8dXJ3jagcJcys3Zb4i1cQEk5ytSAipH/zwBVx2iOQIlVB6qAhH+3EcBzK+9/J2ZCMDw Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Buenos Aires: Babel BoF or WG creation? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:22:54 -0000 > You've certainly caught my attention. Which protocol do you have in mind? There are at least two I know of -- I'll email you off list. > I still think it's a dangerous proposition -- I'd feel much more comfortable > starting with a highly focused WG, chartered to do something that we have a > chance of achieving within a few months, and only consider expanding the > scope after our initial success. As Alia put it, if we're not focused enough, we > risk getting into a "protocol beauty contest". I would be okay with that... IE, work on one protocol 'til done, see what else is out there, etc. Carefully controller charter. The main thing is to get more people involved, IMHO. The one problem is sorting out how and where to manage any overlap with RTGWG. > > FYI, there is an open source implementation of EIGRP out there > > Yes! (And it's almost a year old -- I wish I had gotten my grubby hands on the > code earlier. If you'll please excuse me, I've got some reading to do.) Donald Sharp, I think is the primary contributor. Drop me a line off list if you have questions, and I'll either answer them, or put you in touch with Donald, or both. Overall, I actually think D-V/DUAL based stuff is useful for specific situations, so it's useful to keep the concepts and the research in this direction going in the most optimal way possible. I know I represent a minority opinion, though... :-) Russ