Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Rex,

... following up ...

Rex Buddenberg wrote:
>
> I'm genuinely confused regarding just what the order of business needs 
> to be and what the document artifacts that result from that should be.

I think that our small document on aspects of wireless communication is 
a good first step,
and aims to be quite non-controversial.  Even so, it appears to be 
controversial, which I
take to be a pretty good indicator that it is needed, and needed 
immediately.

> I've also been a much more intimate witness on how NOT to do such 
> things within DoD than I ever wanted to be.  Are there, perhaps, some 
> parallels?
>
> How to get it backwards:
>

...  I'd be curious to find out if you really think these steps are 
representative
of  a way forward that starts with our small "aspects" contribution.

>
> Aside from the steps (e.g. #4) that are missing altogether, this is 
> exactly the reverse order of business!  We can, and should, build the 
> reference model without reference to requirements.  Is that were we 
> are agreeing or disagreeing?  Or even on the same page?

Yes, this is a good question, but I think the answer would have to come 
from you.

Regards,
Charlie P.


>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Hello Rex,
>>
>> Thanks for the long email.  I think that I do have a good handle on 
>> the various
>> kinds of mobile communications scenarios as you have outlined below.
>>
>> You have raised the particular point that many nodes in an ad hoc 
>> network
>> do not have to be routers.  I certainly agree with this, and agree 
>> that any work
>> in [autoconf] needs to be able to configure addresses for wireless 
>> nodes in
>> an ad hoc network that are not routers.  Perhaps Emmanuel and I could 
>> better
>> emphasize this point in our draft, but even non-router nodes can be 
>> subject to
>> the problems noted in that draft.  So we have to find better language to
>> identify the wireless nodes that would be affected other than just 
>> calling
>> them "routers".
>>
>> However, I still maintain that this document under discussion is _not_ a
>> requirements document, and that Paul seems to be discussing various
>> requirements for ad hoc networks.  Don't you agree that requirements
>> should be located in a separate document?  The only "requirement" that
>> we have placed in our small document is a need to deal with reality.
>>
>> I'd also like to point out one somewhat unrelated point.  It is 
>> agreed, of
>> course, that MAC-layer problems can pre-empt the usefulness of
>> routing protocols.  However, routing protocols can themselves cause
>> congestion, and any techniques that we can bring to bear that reduce
>> congestion are likely to increase the overall effectiveness of the MAC
>> layer protocols also.  Furthermore, I think it is likely that people who
>> do not have good understanding about the nature of the wireless
>> medium are more likely to make design decisions for routing protocols
>> that would increase congestion.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
>>