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

[Joe Macker <[e-mail]>]

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
>>