Re: [manet] AB#1 (olsrv2-multitopology): Multiplexing RFC5444 Packets

Any input from any participant is not wast of time. I will leave all my
other comments for IESG call then.  You could not even remember this week
why was logic hop (and many ip hop possibility for packets) put in RFC5444,
which may mean that RFC can wast readers time. The WG draft under my
investigation and time, uses the terminology of RFC5444, see the
terminology section, therefore if you want to say data packet just say it
as you did in your below email.

However, still you need to ensure that packets are having not mixed
topology messages. I hope editors respect WG participants even if they
think one input is stupid or wasting time.

AB

On Friday, September 12, 2014, Christopher Dearlove wrote:

> Every use of the word packet in the draft refers to a data packet being
> routed, not a 5444 packet. I just checked.
>
> This makes this posting of yours even more of a waste of time than usual.
> Will you please actually read and understand things before commenting.
> (Putting aside the timescale issue.)
>
> (The protocol thus does exactly what it needs to do with regard to the
> 5444 multiplexer. Nothing.)
>
>
> On 12 Sep 2014, at 03:34, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
> > In another discussion the WG may want RFC5444 packets not mentioned in
> our protocols because it belongs only for multiplexer. However, This draft
> mentions packets and many protocol considerations for RFC5444 packets. The
> draft avoid even mentioning the multiplexer, even though it is very
> important for the use case.
> >
> > Therefore, either take out all describing packets in draft (put it in
> one place as the management consideration section), which I don't think is
> correct because it's an MT protocol, or specify a protocol for multiplexer
> in another draft, or do specify multiplexing in this draft. There is an
> assumption in the draft which I don't think can be accepted to avoid
> multiplexing while considering packets and MT.
> >
> > IMHO the draft needs to specify how the multiplexer packs its MT
> messages so that each packet go through the right topology. Specifying
> parser/multiplexer function is because this draft is mentioning packets and
> messages for MT without mentioning multiplexer. We should ensure that each
> packet routes in one topology and messages are packed correctly. For
> example I don't find the function maintaining that messages of one topology
> are not mixed with messages of other topologies.
> >
> > AB
> > _______________________________________________
> > manet mailing list
> > manet@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>