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

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

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