RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Chris and Joe.

Fred 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:02 AM
> To: Joe Macker; Charles E. Perkins
> Cc: manet; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
> 
> 
> Well, Thomas may or may not be able to speak, as he
> has had email problems. My observations would be
> 
> - We need to get something out, as all of the MANET
>   work is based on this. A major restructuring, let
>   alone a complete replacement, could only be
>   contemplated if the current structure just didn't
>   work, and that is not the case.
> 
> - To reinforce that, I was just looking back at
>   packetbb-00, over a year ago. (Of course it didn't
>   spring into existence in that form, but prior art
>   was author drafts, in OLSRv2 etc.) That had
>   essentially all the features of packetbb-04. Of
>   course there have been refinements - including the
>   removal of fragmentation - but the time for putting
>   down a marker that this wasn't what was wanted was
>   then, or slightly later when DYMO (and Charles is
>   an author of DYMO) adopted it. Now is not that time.
> 
> - Editorial comment is always appropriate. Small
>   changes can have their pros and cons weighted. But
>   cons will include both that there are people who
>   want things simpler, and that by this point in time
>   any change automatically has a strike against it in
>   terms of timescales.
> 
> - A comparison of packetbb with alternatives would be
>   interesting, and I'd be very happy to see one. But
>   that does not extend to considering an alternative
>   as a replacement (for OLSRv2 at least, and hence
>   also for NHDP).
> 
> - Both Joe and I have commented on mappings from a
>   subset of packetbb to a more compressed format
>   (especially I would say if reversible) as of
>   interest. Unfortunately I can't commit to working
>   on such an idea, best I can offer would be to read
>   anyone else's work.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Macker [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 29 March 2007 22:56
> To: 'Charles E. Perkins'
> Cc: 'manet'; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
> 
>                *** 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. 
> 
> I think your review is useful.  I am just more satisfied with packetbb
> than
> perhaps you are and I felt the group has put a lot of time into it in
> open
> discussion for some time now. The authors can speak for themselves.
> -joe
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> >Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:03 PM
> >To: ext Joe Macker
> >Cc: 'SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)'; 'manet'; [e-mail]
> >Subject: Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
> >
> >
> >Hello Joe,
> >
> >O.K.  Now I _am_ confused, and ask for advice.
> >
> >I've been reluctant for quite some months to invest the number 
> >of hours to review these documents, because I figured that 
> >nobody would care what I said about them very much.  During 
> >the last meeting, Thomas and others convinced me to review 
> >them (i.e, that they _would_ care what I said).
> >
> >So do I spend the time, or not?  It will take me at least 
> >another 6-7 hours of wall time to go through the documents and 
> >identify editorial revisions, some more hours to compare 
> >against alternative packet formats, and at least that much 
> >time to carry on the e-mail discussions.  I'm willing to do 
> >it, but not if it is a farce and waste of time.
> >
> >Please let me know!
> >
> >Regards,
> >Charlie P.
> >
> >
> >ext Joe Macker wrote:
> >> I would agree with Hiroki. Especially since we have had 
> >these designs 
> >> on the table for a long time now.  We discussed at 
> previous meetings 
> >> that if special adaptations were needed for 6LOWPAN, sensor 
> >nets, etc 
> >> that those could be debated and potential adapted specific 
> >to those applications.
> >>
> >> I would also add that fewer messages is often more important than 
> >> smaller messages. If you think about the penalty of 
> >accessing a shared channel,etc.
> >> Of course, this depends upon the lower layer.
> >>
> >> -Joe
> >>   
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL) 
> >[mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:24 PM
> >>> To: manet; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
> >>>
> >>> I agree with the importance of reducing message size 
> especially for 
> >>> sensor network. And it could be applicable if we change 
> >packet format 
> >>> with smart way.
> >>> But from industrial point of view,  I also worry about 
> >DELAY for the 
> >>> standardization. Almost all companies could not follow 
> >frequent draft 
> >>> update, because of a lot of cost. And MANET WG already advertised 
> >>> PacketBB almost Last Call for RFC in 67th and 68th IETF.
> >>>
> >>> So I urge that first of all we move packetBB to RFC. After 
> >>> standardization, we start to discuss how improve packet 
> format and 
> >>> update RFC in need.
> >>> In my opinion packet format applicability depends on the 
> service or 
> >>> the application in real world. It may difficult to cover every 
> >>> situation by only one document. Because the new service 
> or the new 
> >>> situation become available by technological invention day 
> by day. I 
> >>> think the merit of Last Call much bigger than that of delayed 
> >>> standardization. The improvement update for real 
> >application from now 
> >>> on will be done after standardization, I think.
> >>>
> >>> Again I strongly recommend accelerate EVERY standardization 
> >process.  
> >>> Because I hope the MANET technique will be available as soon as 
> >>> possible in real world from industrial standpoint, now 
> only use for 
> >>> some experimental work or limited field.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hiroki
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>> SATOH, Hiroki
> >>> Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory E-mail : 
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2007/03/26, at 23:43, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>>> 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
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Manet-dt mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
> >>>>
> >>>>       
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> manet mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Manet-dt mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
> >>   
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Manet-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
> 

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt