IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] On Forwarding-and-regeneration (was: Re: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items)

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Fri, 22 April 2016 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1993712DDF6 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ja8H-YyJmrTW for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7CFF12DAEE for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id g184so75604086lfb.3 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L3b3f8fSE1U0CsmEft795iqWmNqmTTmB3x5+/qI4iPY=; b=FWPgrapyC5vP3VfIYGD1UXKYvZxLaXhw3d+cFuNFoYx90xBQ69K2ET36acuvzn8PyB 1sPZIjEmTAdWfMqCj/ANUXQntzkDQiJlZpywYerhIIDZgXlzbQGVylcTJ1kc6GfZrZE6 YH7kqxGyEMJqFKwmtc8Of0zwbFd7zY633a1i3BeFTVmNhQcdDLzbv5WciScNwVOPDSMU xwMJTWwlB7rTISTu0TMG7ZDmp7KmcrNJ6MKbPfw485SYNhF7wOaOJtwmxUJySQM+7OQl DkOwKaZb1N1d6p00lFLzXqn+75rvVSknMn3pd2lyxTbL1HLBAsBkk09UFwJtGpewZB9x rtEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L3b3f8fSE1U0CsmEft795iqWmNqmTTmB3x5+/qI4iPY=; b=S85cnoUCNKW2ZBALTatgPxBNP4ppUUHhg4svjgFCg1SH0EMFK8TRFrWSoBToxTgF/X HiaxAYAo554ZPqdwm331w3j88pFGDcYj/jFqAH+CjvX9rzKVlLXZt1kbHxcik3Zdua2f ec0y4jA3IiN8JJHCZNlqvUEhw1gdanC0uMpp2oBE5VFC0EMKb3lxxKOcQr9LN3N18yp/ l7sujz9MlDVWGgR7SoSZVsTkorjrfPoyluOeEdwg7WFoLAs5q/sFs3hoX0hculRBiL+T 8yHKxysijl/aFNpKFaRT4tS6m/OBTR2vL4z2zUSp6gp08dLvVvk6Y+k5A7BGWvzR8vWb Cutg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXDLul4xNF47CzS+VhoYVaFWyrWy0y3U9snPkLJI3YnEvTVlMrvCtbfS551URGqlcSrjRzqHeKRxp0HEg==
X-Received: by 10.25.18.217 with SMTP id 86mr6213964lfs.107.1461316136869; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.24.42 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6DFEF66A-2B48-45B9-A08D-6042B20AF386@fu-berlin.de>
References: <8C311D85-5C5A-4155-9705-6B09D0AA588B@thomasclausen.org> <DE42008F-25E3-492E-8499-2DC13BDB0E8E@fu-berlin.de> <3A79C619-5DEC-4356-9285-7A209AA100E1@thomasclausen.org> <6DFEF66A-2B48-45B9-A08D-6042B20AF386@fu-berlin.de>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:08:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuo6uE8SW5HXAhTvT5hxk2h9ZgkHVfzcg7bxCTvZYZ3iDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/LN70ygWvNNQWHkhNwTR90WHkZms>
Cc: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] On Forwarding-and-regeneration (was: Re: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:09:00 -0000

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> Can it?! Iirc, the reason why we adopted the “regeneration” language in the
> first place is that we’ve been told that whenever one bit in the message
> (apart from its header) is changed, the entire thing has to be regenerated.
> I’m starting to get the feeling we’ve just been misunderstanding each other
> for more than a year. :( Anyway, it seems like we’re getting close now, so
> yay.

"Modifying" the binary message instead of parsing and generating a new
one will be difficult as soon someone writes an extension to AODVv2
that adds more TLVs to the message.

Henning Rogge

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email