RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 30 March 2007 15:56 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 1HXJSg-00065d-0n; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:56:22 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXJSe-00064X-G5; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:56:20 -0400
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.96.56] helo=stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXJSc-00040o-VH; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:56:20 -0400
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [192.42.227.216]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/TEST_SMTPIN) with ESMTP id l2UFtw2X007806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:55:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id l2UFtwbI029180; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id l2UFtp0T028867; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:55:53 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
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] Review Request
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:55:52 -0700
Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A101774861@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6474CBFA00000469EF69CCED4045099206C96@glkms2122>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
Thread-Index: AcdyJBnDolRwhnh4TmqlEesamlsI+AAKCCWAABZyCJAAD2Gm4A==
References: <D6474CBFA00000469EF69CCED4045099206C96@glkms2122>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>, Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>, "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@nokia.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2007 15:55:53.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5776BE0:01C772E3]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: abda3837e791065a13ac6f11cf8e625a
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 agree with Chris and Joe. Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > [mailto:Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:02 AM > To: Joe Macker; Charles E. Perkins > Cc: manet; manet-dt@ietf.org > 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:joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil] > Sent: 29 March 2007 22:56 > To: 'Charles E. Perkins' > Cc: 'manet'; manet-dt@ietf.org > 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:charles.perkins@nokia.com] > >Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:03 PM > >To: ext Joe Macker > >Cc: 'SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)'; 'manet'; manet-dt@ietf.org > >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:hiroki.satoh.yj@hitachi.com] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:24 PM > >>> To: manet; manet-dt@ietf.org > >>> 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 : > >>> hiroki.satoh.yj@hitachi.com > >>> --------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 > >>>>> 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 mailing list > >>> manet@ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > ******************************************************************** > 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] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Ian Chakeres
- [Manet-dt] Re: [manet] Re: PacketBB Ian Chakeres
- [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB Thomas Clausen
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Philippe Jacquet
- RE: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request Brian Adamson
- [Manet-dt] DYMO RREQ flooding and super-flooding Philippe Jacquet