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

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
<[e-mail]> 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
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>