Re: [Manet-dt] RE: Minor MANET Generic Message Format Comments

Chris, my mistake - I didn't read close enough. I thought the two
fields were just reversed.

Does anyone else have a strong opinion to either keep the current
separated structure or to move the two items together?

Ian Chakeres

On 4/4/06, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
> > #1) Chris (and others), how about switching the bits (bit0 and bit1)
> > then the fields stay in the same place and I think everyone is happy.
>
> I'm missing the point here. The issue over #1 is that the originator
> address and the message sequence number, which stay or go together
> based on a single bit (for sensible reasons) are separated by the
> TTL (to be renamed hop limit, I think) and hop count. We're all agreed
> that in an ideal world they'd be together, but this is OLSRv1 legacy
> that some people (I'm one) want to keep, and the minor inconvenience
> (more lack of aesthetics than a real inconvenience) of having them
> separate isn't worth giving up the compatibility. But this is true
> regardless of in which order the two bits are, and we have the bits
> ordered so you use #0, then #1, then #0 again. I could argue this is
> slightly better than reversing them, but really it makes no difference
> which order they are in, so as I said, I don't see the point of the
> change (and therefore might as well leave as is).
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> 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