RE: [manet] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-03

I'm in agreement that this is neither intended nor
desirable. Actually I don't think it's ever desirable,
but especially not in timetlv.

Why never desirable? First it isn't usually necessary.
If C = 1 ms you can have times up to 1.5 months at
millisecond resolution. If C = 1 second you can have
times up to over a century, at second resolution.
(Other figures are of course possible.)

Second the point of timetlv is passing an unambiguous
time, often in circumstances where communications has
not yet been established. If you had to negotiate C for
routing (which is after all why we are here) you'd have
to do that before any other form of topology formation
etc. that used C. This would be really bad. So for our
main use cases, negotiating C really doesn't work.

Yes, I can conceive of a protocol that want to negotiate
C (that doesn't however mean I think it's likely - I
think it's very unlikely given my first point). If so
that protocol can define such a process. It's way outside
what timetlv should include, especially given that it's
an obscure case. (And as we have no prior art, defining a
good mechanism would be tricky.)

Realised there's one more point. If you want to define C
in the same message as one of the timetlv TLVs, that
suggests you may not be using the right format in the
first place.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:ian.chakeres@gmail.com] 
Sent: 18 November 2007 09:56
To: manet@ietf.org
Cc: T.Clausen@computer.org; Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Subject: Re: [manet] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-03

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

I think it would be useful for TimeTLV to specify a method for
carrying 'C'. I understand that normally nodes (or implementations)
might be configured with 'C' for each TimeTLV type. For cases where C
is either unknown or required, I think we should specify a format for
carrying it. I see carrying C as most important when C
misunderstandings could cause routing to fail.

I believe there are several different options for encoding this
information. What do you think would be the best way?

Ian

On Nov 15, 2007 9:48 PM, IETF I-D Submission Tool
<idsubmission@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-03.txt has been
successfuly submitted by Thomas Clausen and posted to the IETF
repository.
>
> Filename:        draft-ietf-manet-timetlv
> Revision:        03
> Title:           Representing multi-value time in MANETs
> Creation_date:   2007-11-15
> WG ID:           manet
> Number_of_pages: 18
>
> Abstract:
> This document describes a general and flexible TLV (type-length-value
> structure) for representing time using the generalized MANET packet/
> message format.  It defines two message and two address block TLVs
> for representing validity and interval times for MANET routing
> protocols.
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet