Re: [Manet-dt] Possible Group Pow-wow Monday Afternoon or Evening.

Ian Chakeres wrote:

>I arrive on Monday at 3pm (time change kills the travel time), so I
>would prefer Monday evening.
>
>In order to avoid conflict, how about 8pm Monday? If this time does
>not work for someone interested in attending please let Joe & I know.
>Otherwise, mark your calendar.
>  
>
Ok, this works for me.

Regards,

--Pedro

>Ian
>
>On 3/1/06, Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>  
>
>>I would like to sit down with manet design team participants prior to MANET
>>on Tuesday.
>>Any interest in sometime Monday afternoon or evening?
>> - I may not arrive until Monday but will likely stay through Thrusday for
>>autoconf.
>>
>>Ian and I will likely provide a brief RTG area report. There are several RTG
>>area sessions so its hard to predict right which one. I want to plant the
>>seed on peoples calendars early.
>>
>>-Joe
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org
>>>[mailto:manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Chakeres
>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:12 AM
>>>To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
>>>Cc: manet-dt@ietf.org; Thomas Clausen
>>>Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Generalised OLSR packet/message format
>>>comments -msg-semantics
>>>
>>>My opinion is that several msg-types might have benefit from
>>>using a few bits in the fixed portion for their specific use.
>>>I don't think this goes against the common format philosophy.
>>>Perhaps, the msg-semantics could be broken into 4 bits for
>>>msg-semantics and 4 bits for msg-type-specific bits.
>>>
>>>I am just proposing the idea. Would any of the OLSRv2 packets
>>>benefit from having a few bits specific and available to it?
>>>
>>>Ian
>>>
>>>On 2/1/06, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
>>><chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>One last comment. I would like to see several of the msg-semantic
>>>>>bits reserved for msg-type specific bits. 4 ideally, but I would
>>>>>probably settle for 2. For example in DYMO, RREQ messages
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>could use
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>a few of these bits for its own purpose.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>I think this is exactly contrary to the common format
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>philosophy (see
>>>      
>>>
>>>>my last message) and is not a good idea. If an RREQ needs RREQ
>>>>specific information, the place for that is a message TLV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>********************************************************************
>>>>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
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>  
>