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

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 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-
>>   charliep@computer.org  |  aodvv2@tools.ietf.org
>>      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
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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