Re: [manet] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization-00.txt

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Mon, 28 July 2014 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6145A1A03D7 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ZOjV9IHWUWt4 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com (mail-qa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C663D1A03F7 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j15so7486428qaq.15 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:03:27 -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-type; bh=/s3xLWxUboWL+TZEbElzcM4IntuTvx3S01sBbS/dAl8=; b=0SAtZmqyu+FnUh0QTF0SJ6ol6M2IzwQ4bMXcabrT6gKbtiGWve/pJJhaynqSGpLrgi Iyof+IInaaNDRim/8Eztyfc5FNnE1FtXBBbDnB8UDHtUQlqFjQ9KVjRXEZwQozMK3Xua 5p0CEuGmmrBBf5vKZSogSGYfbtyk2SCI2HfFxjhibfMOpEKFieQUHRz39tFz1MJ5hOGH R4EtobP1bzs+vAw5ro14NX3NY5xdPmbd18uOKpUU062IbscxHQ6V7XaaIct8gOf+TQE2 lexsRVW91JBvRDv15vgkDrnP2B2vnfNdlMFUROJ1Kr0S8V0n66ErIzYPgDNt5z2qRE5G ak3w==
X-Received: by 10.140.94.197 with SMTP id g63mr2537399qge.90.1406545407070; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.44.18 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8-ycS12WVr3vKB2UXjnv_Sq1Kvn9tonrrHdGjZmw181uw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140728071522.14544.48715.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53D5F918.5090804@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <CADnDZ8-ycS12WVr3vKB2UXjnv_Sq1Kvn9tonrrHdGjZmw181uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:03:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuprgJxcj3sdWm4PN882U+Po8Lf7-coXQbUefu02mKBroQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/W4rrJiiaNFnE9BgfNkZuRp2irIs
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-rogge-manet-nhdp-dualstack-optimization-00.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:03:31 -0000

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I did not misunderstood

You did (misunderstood)

> I think the draft does not follow RFC5498 which I
> think makes it flexible and benefits from UDP packets advantages.

No, it does follow RFC5498.

RFC5498 does not mandate to put only address length 4 RFC5444 messages
into RFC5444 packets that are in IPv4 UDP packets.

> Also
> specifies that RFC5444 messages are allowed to not need to have an RFC5444
> packet (I remember discussing this before and some refused the idea) just
> UDP packets which is another advantage. Please reply if I misunderstood.

The problem is that the phrase "IPv4 RFC5444 packet" doesn't make much
sense, because the RFC5444 packet header is not address family aware.

Maybe I should add two definitions "IPv4/6 RFC5444 packet" to the
draft that mean IPv4/6 UDP packet with RFC5444 packet inside.

Henning Rogge