RE: [manet] RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB
"Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> Wed, 28 March 2007 16:56 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 1HWbRI-00026O-U6; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:56:00 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWbRF-000227-Dr; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:55:57 -0400
Received: from smtp2.bae.co.uk ([20.133.0.12]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWbRB-0001wv-Vg; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:55:57 -0400
Received: from smtpb.greenlnk.net (smtpb.greenlnk.net [10.15.160.219]) by smtp2.bae.co.uk (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id l2SGtnaV002405; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:55:49 +0100 (BST)
Received: from glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET (glkas0002.greenlnk.net [10.15.184.52]) by smtpb.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.1.9/Switch-3.1.9) with ESMTP id l2SGtjHo002174; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:55:45 +0100
Received: from glkms0001.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.1]) by glkas0002.GREENLNK.NET with InterScan Message Security Suite; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:55:56 +0100
Received: from glkms2122.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.26]) by glkms0001.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:55:56 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [manet] RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:55:55 +0100
Message-ID: <D6474CBFA00000469EF69CCED4045099206C94@glkms2122>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [manet] RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB
Thread-Index: AcdxU/bE4LaBDG5sSgC4kJg56ZNFHwAAX/OwAADn5BA=
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@nokia.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2007 16:55:56.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3DB92F0:01C77159]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
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
I know, top-posting is more evil than NAT. But sometimes you need NAT, and sometimes ... It's not just specific to DYMO, it's pretty specific to a 16-bit addressed unexpandable version of DYMO that would have no possibility of adding e.g. NHDP- based optimised flooding - which can save you tens of copies of a message rather than bytes per message. I cannot see how we can produce a format which has the flexibility that we need while offering the compression that Romain is after. I think to cripple packetbb in saving a few bytes that will still not be acceptable to Romain is going to please no one. Please note I'm not saying Romain is wrong, I'm saying he has a different problem (or rather an extreme set of weightings of the requirements) and produces a different solution. What would be interesting would be a fully specified set of preconditions on which subset of packetbb is being addressed, and a fully specified translation (compression/decompression) process between the two (or some evolution thereof). If anyone wants to write one, I'll read it. You might find 6LoWPAN interested. -----Original Message----- From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] Sent: 28 March 2007 17:27 To: Charles E. Perkins Cc: manet; manet-dt@ietf.org Subject: [manet] RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB *** WARNING *** This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > What do you think about Romain's proposal? I don't know; I was just starting to look at Wesley's proposal and hadn't gotten around to Romain's yet. But on first glance, it seems to be specific to DYMO; can it be generalized to other protocols? (I probably won't have much time to look at this in more details...) Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ******************************************************************** 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
- RE: [Manet-dt] Re: [manet] Re: PacketBB Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: [manet] RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: [manet] RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Dearlove, Christopher (UK)