RE: [Manet-dt] OLSRv2 NHDP comments

Thomas
> I feel that having an upper limit on the control traffic, which a
given
> protocol is able to generate, is very useful. Without restricting the
> interval between subsequent transmissions of HELLO messages, I could
> easily envision an implementation which would NOT be doing the right
> thing and end up eating all available bandwidth in a region.

Agreed so far.

> however I strongly believe that such MUST be imposed as a MUST.

That doesn't totally convince me that SHOULD isn't acceptable. SHOULD
does after all mean something stronger than just "if you feel like it".

However in one sense the argument is academic. A node may have a
minimum interval, and it may absolutely respect it. But if we allow
a node to set its own values (as discussed elsewhere) then the node
could set that interval to zero (or if zero isn't allowed, as close
to zero as makes no difference). And I can't see that we have the
knowledge to provide absolute constraints on the minimum interval.

On that basis, I'm happy with MUST, as (assuming that a node's
parameters must be available in some sense - device documentation
for example if fixed) this gets most of the best of the two
(MUST/SHOULD) options.

********************************************************************
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