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

[Joe Macker <[e-mail]>]

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