RE: [Manet-dt] Review Request

Can you clarify that you are providing more General comments (e.g.,
packetbb/nhdp)?  I am assuming you meant these comments more generally and
perhaps we start them on a separate thread.

My Review Request message (original thread) was for SMF not a general call
on all documents. Those calls should follow but SMF has optional TLV
dependencies,etc and none when operating in certain modes as I presented at
the meeting. Present experimental deployments have no TLV dependencies.  The
main issue in this case is the IPv6 DPD option header.  For IPv4 there is
also optionally no additional message size increase.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charles.perkins@nokia.com] 
>Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:43 AM
>To: ext Joe Macker
>Cc: 'manet'; manet-dt@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
>
>
>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