Summarize past experiments

[Lotterleben]

Jiazi:

1) Because RFC 3561 has already been experimented for 13 years, as its version 2, AODVv2 should summarize what kind of experiences have been obtained in the past 13 years, and justify the design choices made in the current draft (like use of RFC5444, removing some of the features, etc)

Charlie:

I never heard of a rule like this - that if a protocol is going to Experimental, we need to describe the experiments that have already been done.

Jiazi:

It's not a "rule", but very useful information for the readers who are interested in the protocol. If I have been running RFC3561 for years, and now am thinking about moving the new version, I would like to know why it's necessary.

[Lotterleben]

+1 to what Jiazi is saying here.

[charliep51]

Hello Lotte,

I further explained that it was necessary because of RFC 5444 and (long ago) integration with DSR.

What more did you have in mind to resolve this issue?

My feeling is that we should choose NOT to include all the interesting information about AODV because (a) it would make the spec a lot longer, (b) it is more effort that needs to be expended by someone and (c) it is not important for interoperability.

However, if someone wants to do this, it belongs in an appendix. Then we can have an argument about whether it's normative, just like the arguments we had previously which were used to kill some really useful information.

Regards, Charlie P.

On 5/17/2016 7:58 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:

Jiazi:

1) Because RFC 3561 has already been experimented for 13 years, as
its version 2, AODVv2 should summarize what kind of experiences
have been obtained in the past 13 years, and justify the design
choices made in the current draft (like use of RFC5444, removing
some of the features, etc)

Charlie:

I never heard of a rule like this - that if a protocol is going to
Experimental, we need to describe the experiments that have
already been done.

Jiazi:

It's not a "rule", but very useful information for the readers who
are interested in the protocol. If I have been running RFC3561 for
years, and now am thinking about moving the new version, I would
like to know why it's necessary.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Lotterleben/AODVv2-Draft/issues/8

[Lotterleben]

for the record: @charliep51 volunteered to add a short bibliography so we have it in our archives :)

[Lotterleben]

+1 papers from Ms. Yousefi et al.!