[Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB

[Ian Chakeres <[e-mail]>]

Charlie, I encouraged you (and others) to review PacketBB and to  
suggest improvements. If you feel PacketBB is too heavyweight please  
make specific suggestions to the authors and this list.

I personally disagree about the expensive cost of PacketBB and the  
cost of using a TLV structure. Can you please provide some specific  
examples where the cost is large? Or where we might save lots of bits/ 
bytes for NHDP, DYMO, or OLSRv2? In my analysis PacketBB almost  
always results in fewer bits/bytes than a non-compacting format.

Ian Chakeres

On Mar 26, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

>
> Hello folks,
>
> Once again, I urge that we place as much consideration as
> possible on reducing message size to the maximum extent.
> I have myself been reluctant to spend a lot of time on reviewing
> the document because I worry that my comments will not be
> taken as constructive.  Ian has expressed his concern that I
> am too late to make any suggestions for substantial change.
>
> I believe that the TLV structure is very expensive in terms
> of byte overhead.  I also think that parseability is far less
> important than message size, although both are important.
> I would rate the relative importance as 90% vs. 10% for
> the parseability/size tradeoff.
>
> Similar considerations may apply to NHDP.
>
> It is pretty clear that the trend has been to be more
> "IETF"-like in the message design, at the expense of
> message size.  In my opinion, this is inappropriate if we
> want our work to be applicable for sensors or 6lowpan
> or other low-power devices.  When one byte of airtime
> consumes as much energy as millions of processor cycles,
> it makes sense to favor additional processing to reduce
> message size.  IETF protocols typically favor human
> readability of the protocol document at the expense
> of message size, and for many applications this is wholly
> inappropriate.
>
> I would be very interested to hear opinions from other
> members of the working group about this.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
>
>
> ext Joe Macker wrote:
>> At the manet WG meeting we discussed a workplan prior to moving  
>> SMF to Last
>> Call for Experimental consideration. While some readability  
>> improvements may
>> be done the authors request that the WG provide comments as soon as
>> possible.  Positive and general comments are encouraged along with  
>> others.
>> If you an implementor and find something confusing we are  
>> interested in
>> hearing from you.
>> Please see the recent briefings on line from the last meeting to  
>> understand
>> the recent changes and upcoming plan.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Manet-dt mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Manet-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt


_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt