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

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail] (iPhone)
[e-mail] (home)

> On 5 Apr 2014, at 01:23, Joe Macker <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 3561 did it wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> What is the definition of "node"?
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On 4 avr. 2014, at 01:20, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> 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:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-manet-
>>>>> [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]
>>>>> Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
>>>>> Priority:  minor        |  Milestone:
>>>>> Component:  aodvv2       |    Version:
>>>>> Severity:  Active WG    |   Keywords:
>>>>> Document               |
>>>>> -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/30>
>>>>> manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> manet mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> manet mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> manet mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet