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

["SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Charles,

I also think your review is useful for future update. It is worth for  
discussing. I am just afraid of delay for standardization from my  
experience so far.

Regards,
Hiroki

---------------------------------------------
SATOH, Hiroki
Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory
E-mail : [e-mail]
---------------------------------------------



On 2007/03/30, at 2:02, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

>
> 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 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