Re: [manet] LOADng works

[C Chauvenet <[e-mail]>]

Le 5 nov. 2012 à 17:41, Jon Black a écrit :

I have not yet attempted to implement LOADng.

So your current sensor network deployment is working without LOADng ?

My "enthusiasm" as you call it developed from reading the two drafts and finding the LOADng to be closer to something that I could read and implement.  It is mostly based on my reading, but also from what I've heard about other implementations being available, tested and deployed.

I find the DYMO document still confusing and not something that I could read and write code from.

Where does your enthusiasm for DYMO come from?  I haven't heard from anyone that has implemented it yet.

I stated my opinion earlier in reply to the chairs question, as requested.
I won't copy them here again, to avoid flooding ;-)

Cédric.


Jon


________________________________
From: C Chauvenet <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: Jon Black <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Daniel He <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Timothy J. Salo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2012 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: [manet] LOADng works

Jon Black,

Overall, I don't understand your enthusiasm for LOADng.
Do you have some experiments with this protocol ?

BTW, I notice that your time-window activity slipped from a few hours.
Did you finally moved toward Atlanta to defend your opinion ?

Last but not least, it seems that one of the main LOADng authors did not state his opinion in this debate ?

Cédric.

Le 5 nov. 2012 à 03:00, Jon Black a écrit :

This not not what JP is requiring.  He is not saying that the document should not mention LLNs, but instead it would explicitly "it should not be use in LLNs".  This is something quite different and technically and intellectually dishonest, but again JP has hijacked the conversation.

Jon


________________________________
From: Daniel He <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Timothy J. Salo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [manet] LOADng works

I think it is fair enought to replace the name. and I knew you don't like LLN
at all. and I agree to LLN taken out of the context is reasonable and generized.

Cheers,
Dan

On 4 November 2012 14:16, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On Nov 4, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Daniel He wrote:


I still don't beleive that LOADng deployments fit MANETs'
applicabilities. Therefore, disagree with the subject claimed (i.e.
LOADng works).

I totally disagree!  LOADng is fitting to MANET. fundamentally
it is lightweighted AODV.

Here is my take on this; *if* there is a choice for option 1, 2 or may be a brand new document related to
reactive routing in MANET (protocol called AODVv20, and excluding LLNs, then I think that we do not
have any issue.


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet




--
Dan He
---------------------
Tel: [phone]


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet