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

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

I think your review is useful.  I am just more satisfied with packetbb than
perhaps you are and I felt the group has put a lot of time into it in open
discussion for some time now. The authors can speak for themselves.
-joe

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:03 PM
>To: ext Joe Macker
>Cc: 'SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)'; 'manet'; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [manet] Re: [Manet-dt] Review Request
>
>
>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-dt mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt