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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

IMO the RFC2501 should have defined MANET nodes or even explain what is
talking about. Any informational work should be clear if it wants to have
good information. I remember I asked the WG before to update this old
informational RFC but most disagreed. Now most say it is not defining the
principle of node.

AB

On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Joe Macker 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 o