Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06.txt

No, it really doesn't. That's the point of RFC 5444, it carries everything. Where there are specific requirements (which may be more complicated than that split) protocols can, and in some cases are requested to, indicate why they do things as they do.

And we're also past WG stage too. The WG, which understands this, passed this a time ago. We're at the AD stage, the last couple of edits being for comments from our AD, the wider IESG to follow.

--  
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@gmail.com
chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk is dead

> On 26 May 2017, at 17:54, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi MANET CHairs,
> 
> IMHO it is strange or maybe very strange that this draft is proposing that standard for protocols that are reactive and proactive protocols but does not distinguish the usage of the standard for each protocol. 
> 
> I ask that the authors edit and make it clear that packet/message format usage depends on if the network is using 1) reactive, 2) proactive, 3) hybrid. We need to discuss each separately,
> 
> I suggest we make three separate sections for each protocol category.
> 
> thanks
> AB
> 
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:14 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks of the IETF.
>> 
>>         Title           : Rules for Designing Protocols Using the RFC 5444 Generalized Packet/ Message Format
>>         Authors         : Thomas Clausen
>>                           Christopher Dearlove
>>                           Ulrich Herberg
>>                           Henning Rogge
>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06.txt
>>         Pages           : 26
>>         Date            : 2017-05-17
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>    RFC 5444 specifies a generalized MANET packet/message format and
>>    describes an intended use for multiplexed MANET routing protocol
>>    messages that is mandated to use on the port/protocol specified by
>>    RFC 5498.  This document updates RFC 5444 by providing rules and
>>    recommendations for how the multiplexer operates and how protocols
>>    can use the packet/message format.  In particular, the mandatory
>>    rules prohibit a number of uses that have been suggested in various
>>    proposals, and which would have led to interoperability problems, to
>>    the impediment of protocol extension development, and to an inability
>>    to use optional generic parsers.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage/
>> 
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet