Subject: Re: [Roll] Review and concerns (was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-02)

From: "David E. Culler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:52:10 -0800

Emmanuel,

We discussed the list of rows in each of the IETF meetings and
associated discussions leading up to those.   It sounds like you agree
that if you have some criteria for limiting the search space the
discussion will never complete.   That is necessary, according to the
charter, to consider the space of solutions that might actually solve
the problem.  To do any analysis there has to be something specific to
analyze.  You mention two addition WGs that have done relevant work.
Indeed, from the very beginning it was stated that Roll should work in
conjunction with those groups.  It is key another thing to say "this
specific protocol as described by this RFC or I-D ought to be analyzed
in draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-03".

Here's the NEMO list.  Which are you arguing should be included and
why?

draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support

-03

2004-06-07

RFC 3963

draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models

-06

2006-02-21

RFC 4887

draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues

-07

2007-02-07

RFC 4980

draft-ietf-nemo-requirements

-06

2006-11-09

RFC 4886

draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement

-03

2006-09-18

RFC 4888

draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis

-03

2006-09-18

RFC 4889

draft-ietf-nemo-terminology

-06

2006-11-09

RFC 4885

There are many topics that as a working group we'd like to move on to
once this process completes.  Much important work has been done outside
IETF WGs.  Some of it in the IRTF.  Others in other places.  All the
more reason to complete this well formed, bounded effort.   Again, I do
not hear any suggestion that any protocol within the domain of analysis
meets the criteria.  I do hear that there are protocols or
modifications to protocols that do or could.  We need to complete the
process on this draft so that we can move on to consider such
enhancements, candidates, or new designs.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Emmanuel
Baccelli <emmanuel.baccelli at
gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM, David E. Culler <culler
at eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

Some concerns recognize that there are protocols outside the defined
universe that should be considered and that appear to be far better
suited to meeting the criteria than the set of IETF protocols that were
considered - since those protocols were developed without these
criteria.  Again, that suggests that the criteria are a reasonable
guide, that they do not appear to be unobtainable, and that the
analysis has provided a suitable guide.

None of the comments seem to be claiming that there is a solution
within the universe that we were chartered to consider that meets the
criteria.

Even
admitting that the universe you defined is wide enough (a point which
is actually agued since months), we could conclude to this only if this
universe (defined in the charter) is covered entirely. Again, it is not
the case: I have seen nothing said about NEMO or DTN, so reports of
investigations in these fields need to be included in the draft anyways.

Second, if we are not going into a long research
phase, I am still wondering what existing protocols/algorithms, IP
compatible or not, are being "hinted at" here, which could meet the
"dream" criterii that are evoked in the draft. Chris Dearlove and other
people have asked this question many times, and it is yet to be
answered.

Emmanuel

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: "Emmanuel Baccelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:23:39 +0100

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:52 PM, David E. Culler
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> associated discussions leading up to those.   It sounds like you agree that
> if you have some criteria for limiting the search space the discussion will
> never complete.   That is necessary, according to the charter, to consider
> the space of solutions that might actually solve the problem.  To do any
> analysis there has to be something specific to analyze.  You mention two
> addition WGs that have done relevant work.  Indeed, from the very beginning
> it was stated that Roll should work in conjunction with those groups.  It is
> key another thing to say "this specific protocol as described by this RFC or
> I-D ought to be analyzed in draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-03".
>
>  Here's the NEMO list.  Which are you arguing should be included and why?
>

Sorry to be blunt, but your charter says that DTN and NEMO are to be
reviewed as well as the rest. There is not a word about either of these
"fields" in the draft, why? You need to answer this question. Not me.

Emmanuel

>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support/>
> -03 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support>
>  2004-06-07   RFC 3963 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3963>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models/>
> -06 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models>
>  2006-02-21   RFC 4887 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4887>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues/>
> -07 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues>
>  2007-02-07   RFC 4980 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4980>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-requirements<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements/>
> -06 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements>
>  2006-11-09   RFC 4886 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4886>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement/>
> -03 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement>
>  2006-09-18   RFC 4888 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4888>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis/>
> -03 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis>
>  2006-09-18   RFC 4889 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4889>
>   draft-ietf-nemo-terminology<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-terminology/>
> -06 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-terminology>
>  2006-11-09   RFC 4885 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4885>
>
> There are many topics that as a working group we'd like to move on to once
> this process completes.  Much important work has been done outside IETF
> WGs.  Some of it in the IRTF.  Others in other places.  All the more reason
> to complete this well formed, bounded effort.   Again, I do not hear any
> suggestion that any protocol within the domain of analysis meets the
> criteria.  I do hear that there are protocols or modifications to protocols
> that do or could.  We need to complete the process on this draft so that we
> can move on to consider such enhancements, candidates, or new designs.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Emmanuel Baccelli <emmanuel.baccelli at
> gmail.com <emmanuel.baccelli%20at%20gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM, David E. Culler <culler at
>> eecs.berkeley.edu <culler%20at%20eecs.berkeley.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> universe that should be considered and that appear to be far better suited
>>> to meeting the criteria than the set of IETF protocols that were considered
>>> - since those protocols were developed without these criteria.  Again, that
>>> suggests that the criteria are a reasonable guide, that they do not appear
>>> to be unobtainable, and that the analysis has provided a suitable guide.
>>>
>>> None of the comments seem to be claiming that there is a solution within
>>> the universe that we were chartered to consider that meets the criteria.
>>>
>>
>
>  Even admitting that the universe you defined is wide enough (a point
> which is actually agued since months), we could conclude to this only if
> this universe (defined in the charter) is covered entirely. Again, it is not
>  Second, if we are not going into a long research phase, I am still
> wondering what existing protocols/algorithms, IP compatible or not, are
> being "hinted at" here, which could meet the "dream" criterii that are
> evoked in the draft. Chris Dearlove and other people have asked this
> question many times, and it is yet to be answered.
>
>  Emmanuel
>

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:43:15 -0800

On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:23 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:52 PM, David E. Culler <[email-masked] 
> > wrote:
> Emmanuel,
> associated discussions leading up to those.   It sounds like you  
> agree that if you have some criteria for limiting the search space  
> the discussion will never complete.   That is necessary, according  
> to the charter, to consider the space of solutions that might  
> actually solve the problem.  To do any analysis there has to be  
> something specific to analyze.  You mention two addition WGs that  
> have done relevant work.  Indeed, from the very beginning it was  
> stated that Roll should work in conjunction with those groups.  It  
> is key another thing to say "this specific protocol as described by  
> this RFC or I-D ought to be analyzed in draft-ietf-roll-protocols- 
> survey-03".
>
> reviewed as well as the rest. There is not a word about either of  
> these "fields" in the draft, why? You need to answer this question.  
> Not me.

I thought the draft is very explicit:

    This document considers "existing routing protocols" to be protocols
    that are specified in RFCs or, in the cases of DYMO
    [I-D.ietf-manet-dymo] or OLSRv2 [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2] , a very
    mature draft which will most likely become an RFC.  This document
    does not seek to answer the question of whether there is any  
protocol
    anywhere which could meet LLN application requirements.  Rather, it
    seeks to answer whether protocols, as specified in current IETF
    standards documents, can meet such requirements.

In the case of DTN, it's IRTF.

In the case of NEMO, it is not a routing protocol.

When the charter was written, the initial thought was that reviewing  
those protocols seemed like a good idea. We did. But after further  
examination and discussion, both on the mailing list at at IETF  
meetings, the WG reached consensus that the current methodology for  
the *routing protocol survey* is the right one. Because neither is a  
standards-track routing protocol, their mechanisms do not help answer  
the question of whether ROLL needs to recharter for protocol design.  
Rather, they might be part of the next step, which is to examine  
existing mechanisms and protocols to see how protocol design should go  
forward.

Phil

---

From: "David E. Culler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:52:40 -0800

That's correct.  It says"- Survey the applicability of existing
protocols to LLNs. The aim of

this document will be to analyze the scaling and characteristics of

existing protocols and identify whether or not they meet the routing

requirements of the applications identified above. Existing IGPs, MANET,

NEMO, DTN routing protocols will be part of evaluation."

My understanding is that the authors have done that review and have
reached out in various was to engage in discussion with those groups to
identify concrete instances that should be examined in detail.  My
question is a concrete one.  In the Nemo IDs is there a protocol that
should have been addressed in the survey in the manner of the ones that
are there?  I didn't see a specific candidate.  Did they miss it?
Which?  Where?

Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:52 PM, David E.
Culler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Emmanuel,

Sorry to be blunt, but your charter says that DTN and NEMO are
to be reviewed as well as the rest. There is not a word about either of
these "fields" in the draft, why? You need to answer this question. Not
me.

Emmanuel

-03

2004-06-07

RFC 3963

-06

2006-02-21

RFC 4887

-07

2007-02-07

RFC 4980

-06

2006-11-09

RFC 4886

-03

2006-09-18

RFC 4888

-03

2006-09-18

RFC 4889

-06

2006-11-09

RFC 4885

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Emmanuel
Baccelli <emmanuel.baccelli
at
gmail.com> wrote:

Even

Emmanuel

Roll mailing list

[email-masked]

---

From: "Emmanuel Baccelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:50:32 +0100

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Philip Levis <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:52 PM, David E. Culler <
>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>> Emmanuel,
>   does not seek to answer the question of whether there is any protocol
> When the charter was written, the initial thought was that reviewing those
> protocols seemed like a good idea. We did. But after further examination and
> discussion, both on the mailing list at at IETF meetings, the WG reached
> consensus that the current methodology for the *routing protocol survey* is
> the right one. Because neither is a standards-track routing protocol, their
> mechanisms do not help answer the question of whether ROLL needs to
> recharter for protocol design. Rather, they might be part of the next step,
> which is to examine existing mechanisms and protocols to see how protocol
> design should go forward.
>
> Phil

Then at least give the gist of the discussions on the subject, to explain in
the draft why the charter is not covered.

However, at the time the charter was written, DTN was already IRTF, and
unless I am mistaken, except OSPF, none of the routing protocols are
standards-track, so these reasons are not enough, in my mind.

Why discard things that are chartered? Maybe the charter was not well
written. But this must be justified in the draft. The whole point is that
this draft is incomplete, and that this incompleteness i not justified in
anyway other than hand-waving.

Emmanuel

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:08:32 +0000

> In the case of DTN, it's IRTF.

Yes it is. But of course that's a good and not a bad thing:-)

Anyway FYI (I've not read the draft so I don't have "concerns"),
there is one routing protocol (PRoPHET) defined in an I-D by
the DTNRG, [1] and that's nearly ready to start becomming an RFC.
Note that PRoPHET is not "the" routing scheme for DTNs (there
are others, some of which claim to be better) but it is the
only one defined in an I-D afaik, so it may well meet your
criteria for inclusion. I've no idea if PRoPHET would be good,
bad or indifferent in meeting your requirements were it to
be included in the survey.

Also - if this WG wants to ask DTN folks if they've something
else to offer, feel free to mail the dtn-interest list [2] - I
don't recall seeing anything from ROLL on that list (but I
may have forgotten).

Regards,
Stephen. (DTNRG co-chair)

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet
[2] http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest/

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:08:10 -0800

On Dec 15, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
>
> Then at least give the gist of the discussions on the subject, to  
> explain in the draft why the charter is not covered.
>
> However, at the time the charter was written, DTN was already IRTF,  
> and unless I am mistaken, except OSPF, none of the routing protocols  
> are standards-track, so these reasons are not enough, in my mind.
>
> Why discard things that are chartered? Maybe the charter was not  
> well written. But this must be justified in the draft. The whole  
> point is that this draft is incomplete, and that this incompleteness  
> i not justified in anyway other than hand-waving.

I agree -- it is appropriate to put the reasoning behind their  
omission in the document itself.

Phil

---

From: "David E. Culler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:46:55 -0800

That's very useful guidance.  Thanks.

Stephen Farrell wrote:

Philip Levis wrote:

Regards,