[aodvv2-discuss] Re: A nearly complete intermediate version with suggested revisions to pseudocode
- From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:54:48 -0800
Hello Lotte,
Question: Did you find the example packet formats to be
helpful in your work?
Minor follow-up below:
On 3/5/2015 12:27 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
If everyone here agrees it has to go, then of course it will
go. But if others think it's useful, then I would hope it could
stay. In its favor, I'll mention two things:
- it was a LOT of work to finally get it right, and
- it would be enormously helpful to people who need
to build AODVv2 for deployments that do not have a
pre-existing RFC 5444 parser.
Something just dawned on me... Do you mean “People who don't have a
RFC 5444 parser at hand so they will have to build their own” or
“people who neither want nor have their own RFC5444 parser, because
they want to build packets in their own format”?
For the former, I'd disagree.
Definitely NOT the former. That would require implementing every scrap
of RFC 5444, and that's light-years away from the jurisdiction of AODVv2.
The algorithms are a nice checklist, but they won't help in figuring
out the nitty gritty details of putting together correct 5444 packets,
because that's RFC 5444's task, and that's fine. But I think the
Algorithms shouldn't be advertised as help to build a RFC 5444 parser.
I will look again to make sure that the text doesn't lend itself
to that interpretation.
Regards,
Charlie P.
Other related posts:
