Re: [manet] On Forwarding-and-regeneration (was: Re: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items)

[Lotte Steenbrink <[e-mail]>]

Hi Henning,

> Am 22.04.2016 um 11:08 schrieb Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Lotte Steenbrink
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> Can it?! Iirc, the reason why we adopted the “regeneration” language in the
>> first place is that we’ve been told that whenever one bit in the message
>> (apart from its header) is changed, the entire thing has to be regenerated.
>> I’m starting to get the feeling we’ve just been misunderstanding each other
>> for more than a year. :( Anyway, it seems like we’re getting close now, so
>> yay.
> 
> "Modifying" the binary message instead of parsing and generating a new
> one will be difficult as soon someone writes an extension to AODVv2
> that adds more TLVs to the message.
> 

D’oh, right. Yeah, if I remember it correctly, that’s what you explained to me when I got confused about the topic last spring… But– even if a message contains TLVs that the AODVv2 implementation handling it doesn’t understand, it will still be able to recognize the Metric TLV, right? Isn’t that the nifty thing about RFC5444? So, while we really shouldn’t write “before calculating the ICV, set the n-th 4 octets to 0”, we might say “identify the octets that make up the metric value and set those to 0”?

Best regards,
Lotte

> Henning Rogge