[aodvv2-discuss] Re: A nearly complete intermediate version with suggested revisions to pseudocode
- From: Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:48:28 +0100
Hi Charlie,
Am 05.03.2015 um 17:54 schrieb Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Hello Lotte,
>
> Question: Did you find the example packet formats to be
> helpful in your work?
>
Which ones are you referring to, the pseudocode or the old sketches? (I haven't
overhauled my code recently as I've been busy with other projects and wanted to
wait until AODVv2 is less in flux again… Thinking about it, that was probably
not the smartest move)
> 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.
Phew! Okay, then I just terribly misunderstood you and we're on the same page.
Thank you for the clarification.
Regards,
Lotte
>
>> 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:
