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

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

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-dt mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt