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
- [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Ian Chakeres
- [Manet-dt] Re: [manet] Re: PacketBB Ian Chakeres
- [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Thomas Clausen
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Philippe Jacquet
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Brian Adamson
- [Manet-dt] DYMO RREQ flooding and super-flooding Philippe Jacquet