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

[Thomas Heide Clausen <[e-mail]>]

Agreed.

Sent from my iPad

> On 5 avr. 2014, at 10:18, Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>