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

It's true I don't recall why it (for at least one value of it) was put in. But why something was put in (who had the idea, was it WG consensus or IESG requirement - not the only options) is only relevant to a discussion why we are where we are (as I was making). It has no relevance to where we are, including no difference to anyone implementing.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone)
chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home)

> On 12 Sep 2014, at 11:26, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
> <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> You could not even remember this week
>> why was logic hop (and many ip hop possibility for packets) put in RFC5444,
> ("You" refers to Christopher Dearlove)
> 
> 
> 
>> Any input from any participant is not wast of time.
> Normally yes...
> 
> but the last two of your post in this thread were a waste 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,
> 
> I would like to see the relevant quote from Christopher from you.
> 
> (and I would like to know what you mean with "logic hop")
> 
> Henning Rogge
> 
>> 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
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> 