Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@nokia.com> Mon, 26 March 2007 14:43 UTC

Return-path: <manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVqQ6-0002dd-D4; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:43:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVqQ5-0002bn-1L; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:43:37 -0400
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.173] helo=mgw-ext14.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVqQ3-0002cC-Hx; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:43:37 -0400
Received: from esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh108.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.145]) by mgw-ext14.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l2QEhBgp002084; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:43:33 +0300
Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:43:14 +0300
Received: from daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) by daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:43:12 -0500
Received: from [10.162.91.46] ([10.162.91.46]) by daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:43:11 -0500
Message-ID: <4607DBF4.8060608@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:43:00 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@nokia.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ext Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
References: <019c01c76d85$0e6904f0$165cfa84@SEXTANT>
In-Reply-To: <019c01c76d85$0e6904f0$165cfa84@SEXTANT>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2007 14:43:12.0437 (UTC) FILETIME=[14572E50:01C76FB5]
X-eXpurgate-Category: 1/0
X-eXpurgate-ID: 149371::070326174333-071D2BB0-20F12492/0-0/0-1
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Cc: 'manet' <manet@ietf.org>, manet-dt@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org

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
> Manet-dt@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
>   


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