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

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

Graph theory is where node is at home.

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

> On 5 Apr 2014, at 03:11, Joe Macker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> right chris I was not responding to your comments just confirming that 2501 did not claim to mandate any terminology definition of node.
> 
> I prefer router myself when I talk about something that does routing 
> but I do occassionally like to use node when I talk about graph theory ;-)
> 
>> On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>