Re: [Manet-dt] Generalised OLSR packet/message format comments - msg-semantics

My opinion is that several msg-types might have benefit from using a
few bits in the fixed portion for their specific use. I don't think
this goes against the common format philosophy. Perhaps, the
msg-semantics could be broken into 4 bits for msg-semantics and 4 bits
for msg-type-specific bits.

I am just proposing the idea. Would any of the OLSRv2 packets benefit
from having a few bits specific and available to it?

Ian

On 2/1/06, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
> > One last comment. I would like to see several of the msg-semantic bits
> > reserved for msg-type specific bits. 4 ideally, but I would probably
> > settle for 2. For example in DYMO, RREQ messages could use a few of
> > these bits for its own purpose.
>
> I think this is exactly contrary to the common format philosophy
> (see my last message) and is not a good idea. If an RREQ needs
> RREQ specific information, the place for that is a message TLV.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
Manet-dt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt