Re: [Manet-dt] packetbb - format only
"Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com> Tue, 21 March 2006 15:42 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1FLj0F-0004gL-M1; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:42:35 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLj0D-0004ec-Pg
for manet-dt@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:42:33 -0500
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.202])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLj0D-0004Wq-HB
for manet-dt@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:42:33 -0500
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id j2so1582946nzf
for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:42:30 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=FNV9rax2r9aFDC7sbrlT8FClCCAqC3ZrZZA5WRktBcfeSJK1JWjGy63Iew2AyhbYX0NF8iY854yHwcYaNJCrsWkBU4hMA+2qHBi69yhU17nudQrTazkbJHBA0CVhHpSUKnMrPSWSi9M2FxbojbxFURq5MrG3Tmap6VTk6q7Vjlk=
Received: by 10.37.21.11 with SMTP id y11mr3089637nzi;
Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.18.77 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <374005f30603210742p149346achc917ec2ee18bc94d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:42:29 -0800
From: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
To: "Luke Klein-Berndt" <kleinb@nist.gov>
Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] packetbb - format only
In-Reply-To: <002501c64cfc$88a5e1c0$4e838182@campus.nist.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <374005f30603210707m55ff9a62r78c50d49787dd6c4@mail.gmail.com>
<002501c64cfc$88a5e1c0$4e838182@campus.nist.gov>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
Cc: 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
I am on the fence about this issue. The example we've been using is MaxHops (and HopCount). Should it be required that MaxHops be decremented at each hop? Or are there certain scenarios when it shouldn't/wouldn't be decremented and that is ok too? I guess I am leaning toward not specifying behavior, since it is a slippery slope. There might be times when a protocol wants to do something slightly different. Either way, I think we agree upon the meaning of the field. Ian On 3/21/06, Luke Klein-Berndt <kleinb@nist.gov> wrote: > I am not sure if this needs to be called out in the PacketBB, routing docs > or at all: The overall destination of the packet is contained in the IP > header Dest field. This might be self evident, but might be good to state > since the packet is relying on a separate protocol feature but not calling > it out. > > In general it might be good to have a section on minimum expected > processing/routing behavior. Perhaps this could be a separate document. It > would be helpful to implementers to see what they could cut and still serve > as a useful intermediate router. It would also give an idea what protocol > designers could expect. An example might be that if a router is going to > process part of a packet it, it has to process all of it... or something > like this. > > -Luke > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:ian.chakeres@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:07 AM > To: manet-dt@ietf.org > Subject: [Manet-dt] packetbb - format only > > While talking last night, we discussed whether the packetbb document > should contain some processing semantics on top of the format. In > general, it was stated that though protocols might assume treatment of > certain fields their processing would not be specified in the > packetbb document. > > If you feel some processing behavior should be included in packetbb, > please speak up. > > Ian Chakeres > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mailing list Manet-dt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
- [Manet-dt] packetbb - format only Ian Chakeres
- RE: [Manet-dt] packetbb - format only Luke Klein-Berndt
- Re: [Manet-dt] packetbb - format only Ian Chakeres