Re: [manet] #30 (aodvv2): Use of word "node"

> On 5 avr. 2014, at 11:05, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> IMO the RFC2501 should have defined MANET nodes or even explain what is talking about. Any informational work should be clear if it wants to have good information. I remember I asked the WG before to update this old informational RFC but most disagreed. Now most say it is not defining the principle of node. 
> 

Abdussalam,

It's fine to say that you "asked the WG before to update this old informational RFC", but that's really going about it the wrong way: the WG doesn't "work for you", but offers a place to for you to (perhaps) do work.

The way it works in the IETF is, that if *you* feel that something needs to be done, documented, then *you* write a draft...with that in hand, *you* try to get consensus for that I-D. First, in a WG for adopting it as WG document (subsequent to which the I-D is beholden to WG consensus, and must adapt to reflect that -- and not to the authors' whims), and, ultimately, seek IETF wide consensus for publication as RFC.

So, if you feel that an update to RFC2501 is needed, then write a draft with what updates you think are required, and see if there's consensus for those.

Thomas

> AB
> 
>> On Saturday, April 5, 2014, 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 o
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet