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

["Joe Macker" <[e-mail]>]

This sounds like a good approach. Lets go with Ian's plan.

Since I am not a Native American shaman we will go with the informal
definition of pow-wow which is any council or gathering of friends ;-)

-Joe

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:57 AM
>To: Joe Macker
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Possible Group Pow-wow Monday 
>Afternoon or Evening.
>
>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.
>
>Ian
>
>On 3/1/06, Joe Macker <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail]
>> >[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ian Chakeres
>> >Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:12 AM
>> >To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
>> >Cc: [e-mail]; 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) 
><[e-mail]> 
>> >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
>> >[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-dt mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt