Subject: [Roll] draft-roux-roll-mpl-eval-00.txt

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:34:11 -0500

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-roux-roll-mpl-eval/
was recently posted, with the abstract:

Abstract

   This draft presents simulation work and first results related to MPL
   performance evaluation.  The simulation makes it possible to evaluate
   MPL performances in the context of a large network.  The simulated
   network introduces 500 nodes.  The general principles of the
   simulator are described.  Then reference settings are introduced, and
   evaluation indicators are proposed.  Finally preliminary results are
   presented under the form of a few tables, that show the proposed
   indicator values depending on some specific parameter which is used
   as a variable argument.  Among various results, the advantage of
   using reactive mode for MPL is shown in terms of the capability to
   maintain loss free diffusion in harsh radio conditions.

====

I've read the document, and I like the direction which it is going.
It would be interesting to have feedback from deployments about how accurate
the random placement matches real life: I think that real life won't be
random at all!

The ROLL charter hardly mentions MPL at all; so having an experience draft
on it, is neither here nor there.

** May I ask what the authors intend for this document?

Do you think that the additional work will occur prior to IETF90,
and might be feedback into possible re-chartering of ROLL?

I think that it is very useful for the technology to have a rigorous
analysis of MPL like this, and very useful for standardization to have
some clear advice on setting the parameters.

Is the software used in this simulation available for others to play with?

I'm concerned that this is a particularly academic paper, and might get
the kind of peer review that I think it deserves as an ID (vs a submission to
a journal).

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:48:29 -0500

> the kind of peer review that I think it deserves as an ID (vs a submission to

I missed the word "NOT".

Should read:

I'm concerned that this is a particularly academic paper, and might NOT get
the kind of peer review that I think it deserves.

(being able to site somethings elsewhere is always good)