Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node"
"manet issue tracker" <trac+manet@trac.tools.ietf.org> Wed, 31 December 2014 15:37 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+manet@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05551A909C for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:37:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Zx0EDwPqk6R for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19B71A90B2 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:37798 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+manet@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1Y6LKB-00015Z-FP; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:36:39 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: manet issue tracker <trac+manet@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: charliep@computer.org
X-Trac-Project: manet
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:36:39 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/manet/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/30#comment:2
Message-ID: <076.c7bfb9311a6b9f8a588a51296659eabc@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <061.9544556e01d71f4a3bc37047a820e1cd@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 30
In-Reply-To: <061.9544556e01d71f4a3bc37047a820e1cd@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: charliep@computer.org, manet@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+manet@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/4tTj1HFW38mflex2RgI1fjFYXZ8
Cc: manet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node"
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: manet@ietf.org
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:37:09 -0000
#30: Use of word "node" Comment (by charliep@computer.org): On 4/4/2014 7:11 PM, Joe Macker wrote: > right chris I was not responding to your comments just confirming that 2501 did not claim to mandate any terminology definition of node. > > I prefer router myself when I talk about something that does routing > but I do occassionally like to use node when I talk about graph theory ;-) > > On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well I brought up 2501, but just to point out it used the term node differently, so the claim that the term was universally agreed wasn't so. 3626 also provided a data point there. So it's best not to use the term undefined. But I didn't make the other points Joe suggests either. >> >> -- >> Christopher Dearlove >> christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone) >> chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home) >> >>> On 5 Apr 2014, at 01:23, Joe Macker <jpmacker@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I didnt think you did. >>> I was commenting on another part of the thread but misclicked in reply. >>> >>> -joe >>> >>>> On Apr 4, 2014, at 6:29 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't think that I claimed that 2501 did any of those things, Joe. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thomas Heide Clausen >>>> http://www.thomasclausen.org >>>> >>>> "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for >>>> experiments, and they wander off through equation >>>> after equation, and eventually build a structure >>>> which has no relation to reality." >>>> - Nikola Tesla, >>>> Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934 >>>> >>>>> On 5 avr. 2014, at 00:23, Joe Macker <jpmacker@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> RFC 2501 was not mandating terminology nor did it claim to. >>>>> >>>>> It was an informational document to raise issues and design considerations relating to a particular problem space. >>>>> >>>>> And certainly there are always more issues to consider than it raised at the time. >>>>> >>>>> -joe >>>>> >>>>> "To everything there is a season. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to model using a graph" >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 3561 did it wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the definition of "node"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4 avr. 2014, at 01:20, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think draft uses node and router the same way it is used in the RFC3561 which is good. The AODVv2 is protocol between nodes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014, manet issue tracker wrote: >>>>>>> #30: Use of word "node" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Thomas Clausen) I find the use of "node" unfortunate. I would much prefer >>>>>>> "router", as this is a protocol running between routers. This applies both >>>>>>> in the text and in the "terminology mnemonics". I note that the text >>>>>>> sometimes uses "router" and sometimes "node", and it is not clear that/if >>>>>>> there is a difference, or if there should be a difference. The word >>>>>>> "Router Client" is also used (albeit inconsistently capitalized) as is >>>>>>> "client". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An application running on a host has very, very specific expectations as >>>>>>> to how the underlying IP link behaves. Applications "Expect an IP Link >>>>>>> that looks like an Ethernet". I believe that it was Dave Thaler that once >>>>>>> said something like "don't expect Microsoft to rewrite their IP stack..." >>>>>>> Applications expect what they expect. Even, a protocol such as NDP, which >>>>>>> an IPv6-host uses to (among other things) configure its interfaces has >>>>>>> this expectation. Therefore, unless the goal is to explicitly not support >>>>>>> general applications and general IP stacks, an appropriate link model must >>>>>>> be presented to hosts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, links between MANET routers are not "looking like an Ethernet". >>>>>>> That's quite alright, as long as the *only* application seeing these >>>>>>> "MANET links" is the routing application. Expose the weirdness of "a >>>>>>> MANET link" to an off-the-shelf app or protocol (such as NDP, mDNS, ...), >>>>>>> and unpredictable behaviour ensures. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The way that other MANET routing protocols have taken is, to provide an IP >>>>>>> hop isolation of the hosts (which run "off the shelf applications") from >>>>>>> the "MANET links": in other words, a "regular IP link" ties the "host" to >>>>>>> the "router" and the "router" then has one or more interfaces towards the >>>>>>> "MANET links". -- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: charliep@computer.org | Owner: charliep@computer.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: aodvv2 | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -----------------------------------+------------------------------------ Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/30#comment:2> manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>
- [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" manet issue tracker
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Teco Boot
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Teco Boot
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Jiazi YI
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Timothy J. Salo
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Thomas Clausen
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Timothy J. Salo
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Joe Macker
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Thomas Heide Clausen
- [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Daniel He
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" manet issue tracker
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" manet issue tracker
- Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node" manet issue tracker