Am 24.06.2015 um 09:41 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>:
done :)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Vicky, hi all,
Am 23.06.2015 um 19:42 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi all,
Thanks so much Lotte!
I've replaced Section 8 in the draft and updated section 12 based on Lotte's
updates. Attached are the new section 8 and 12. I only had a very quick
proofread so I leave it with you guys.
two quibbles:
In Section 12.3., the Length of the new ADDRESS_TYPE TLV Type is specified as
“depends on contents”... Would it make sense to set this to 1 octet? I'd be
thrilled to see hundreds of different AODVv2 extensions which all need their
own Address Type, but I don't think it's very likely to happen...
Also, I noticed that Table 9 says Length (octets) and Table 10 says Length
(and then octets in the table when necessary), would it make sense to unify
this by moving the “octets” into the row of Table 10?
Regards,
Lotte
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
Vicky was so kind as to provide me with the pandoc for section 8, so
attached you'll find my modified version.
Additional changes we need to make are:
- 12.3. RFC 5444 Address Block TLV Types: add new entry for ADDRESS_TYPE
- 12.3. RFC 5444 Address Block TLV Types: remove entries for ORIG_SEQ_NUM
and TARG_SEQ_NUM
- add a table for all address type values:
Address Type Value
------------ -----
ADDR_TYPE_ORIG_ADDR 0
ADDR_TYPE_TARG_ADDR 1
ADDR_TYPE_UNREACHABLE 2
ADDR_TYPE_PKT_SRC 3
(I'm not quite happy with the naming, please change at will)
Regards,
Lotte
Am 23.06.2015 um 17:53 schrieb Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Hi Vicky,
Am 23.06.2015 um 17:51 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi all,
After our discussion with Henning, I have one small question - what name
are we going to use for this TLV?
"Address Meaning" isn't the best :) is "Address Type" better?
Sounds good to me, but I'm not a native speaker :)
Regards,
Lotte
Regards,
Vicky.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 22.06.2015 um 18:33 schrieb Ratliff, Stanley <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
Yes.
Okay great. As a reminder; I've created the google hangout event for
today, if anyone didn't get an invite but wants to attend please ping me.
Stan
From: aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria
Mercieca
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:05 PM
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: "Address meaning" TLV
Yes :)
Vicky.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
so Henning said Tuesday or Thursday at 5 our time (i.e. the usual time of
our hangouts) would be fine. I'd suggest meeting tomorrow to get the
issue done as soon as possible. Is everyone who is interested in the
topic okay with this?
Cheers,
Lotte
Am 22.06.2015 um 16:56 schrieb Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Am 22.06.2015 um 16:54 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>:
I have no problem with including Henning (though it is very short notice
now!!)
I know, I thought I'd wait for answers and then totally forgot about it..
I'll just ping him and see if he responds.
Vicky.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 21.06.2015 um 19:38 schrieb John Dowdell <john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hmm interesting.
Do we want to invite him to the call tomorrow?
So I'm assuming the answer is no?
John
From: Lotte Steenbrink
Sent: 21/06/2015 15:12
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: "Address meaning" TLV
Hi all,
just FYI: Henning just asked via chat if we wanted his input on the whole
TLV restructuring thing. I told him about Vickys idea for an Address
Meaning TLV, and he thought it was a good idea too– provided we don't
leave the TLV empty anywhere.
Regards,
Lotte
Am 17.06.2015 um 14:29 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi all,
Thanks for your comment Justin, sorry it took me a while to notice it!
Comments in line:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:32 PM, bebemaster <bebemaster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sent on a Virgin Mobile Samsung Galaxy S® III
-------- Original message --------
From: Victoria Mercieca
Date:06/16/2015 3:20 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: "Address meaning" TLV
Hi Lotte,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Vicky,
wow, that's a lot of e-mails in one afternoon :o Just two quick comments,
then I'll work my way through your tables...
Am 15.06.2015 um 19:13 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi all,
I dont know if you picked up on Chris Dearlove's comment on MANET a
little while ago?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg17669.html He
proposed some sort of TLV specifically used to indicate what the
addresses mean, using the idea in Appendix C2 of RFC5444. If we took that
approach, we could avoid needing separate TLVs for OrigSeqNum and
TargSeqNum, we could even use multi-value TLVs where we would have
included 2 separate TLVs before. We wouldnt need the PktSource TLV either.
I had a think about this idea... here's what I came up with. I'm sure I
will have made some mistakes so comments are welcome.
The "Address Meaning" TLV would have values defined, e.g. OrigAddr = 1,
TargAddr = 2, PktSource = 3, Unreachable Address = 4. Ideally
"Unreachable Address" would be the default value and we could omit it,
avoiding the extra length in RERR messages (maybe this means it should
have the value 0 instead?).
So for a RREQ, there are 2 addresses in the Address Block, we'd have an
"Address Meaning" TLV with two values as Chris suggested, values being 1
and 2. It doesnt need index values because its providing a list of
values, one for every address in the Address Block.
This could be the compromise we have been looking for... Charlie, What do
you think?
In a RERR, there may be a PktSource address and 'x' Unreachable
Addresses. So the "Address Meaning" TLV would have 1 value (ie value of 3
if using the values defined above) with an index for the PktSource
address. If we make unreachable address the default, we can leave it at
that. Alternatively, if it was necessary to indicate unreachable
addresses explicitly with the "meaning" value defined above, the message
could either have one "Address Meaning" multivalue TLV with a list of
values, 1 value for each address, or it may be more efficient to have one
"Address Meaning" TLV for PktSource, giving the meaning value and index,
and another "Address Meaning" TLV, with the value for unreachable
addresses, with index start and index stop? I guess the parser would
decide which way is more efficient.
I tried to look at how it would compare byte-wise.
TLVs have 1 byte for type, 1 byte for flags, 1 byte for length,
potentially 1 for index, or 2 for index values if giving start and stop
index values + more bytes for the value field, size dependent on TLV type.
The "Address Meaning" TLV has: type + flags + length (3 bytes) +
potentially 0, 1, or 2 bytes for index values, + 1 byte for each actual
value. The options for total length of this TLV are:
3 + num addresses
or 3 + index + value
or 3 + index start + index stop + value
For RERR, if unreachable address is the default, we could omit the
"Address Meaning" TLV. We would need it if there was a PktSource address
included, and it would need 1 value and an index value for it (total
length = 3 + 1 byte for value + 1 byte for index = 5 bytes).
But wouldn't we be back to the “no addresses without a TLV attached
allowed” discussion then?
That's true, hmm.... re-reading RFC5444 Appendix C2, it looks like we can
omit one value if it's the default, but if that is the only value we were
including, do we still have to include the TLV? Maybe we set no value in
it? Do we need index values?
You can omit a value, the tlv alone can impart positive information. If
the only value us the omitted value the tlv still need be attached to
impart that default information, just without a value field. If all
addresses (in an address block) have a default value no indexes are
needed. So it depends on the values to be attached to the addresses and
how the address block is organized.
So... in the text below, the "Address Meaning" TLV has a total length of
3 for RERR when there's no PktSource.
All existing seqnum TLVs have total length 6 when we include an index and
a value, or 4 if we just include an index and no value, i.e. if seqnum is
unknown. If we change to use "Address Meaning" TLV, we no longer need 3
different seqnum TLVs. We can use a generic seqnum TLV and include
multiple values in the one TLV if we know them, rather than use multiple
TLV types to hold one seqNum value each.
To compare the approaches (current = using a variety of TLVs to identify
addresses, proposed = using the "Address Meaning" TLV idea) and ignoring
all unchanged TLVs:
----------------------------------------------
RREQ
----------------------------------------------
current proposed
orig seq num tlv 6
targ seq num tlv 6 or 4
addr meaning tlv 5
seq num tlv (1value) 6 (type, length, flags, index, 2byte value)
seq num tlv (2values) 7 (type, length, flags, 4bytes containing 2 values)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
total
(no TargSeqNum value) 10 11
This could be more likely - if we dont know a previous seqnum for
targaddr of a rreq
(if TargSeqNum value) 12 12
This is the ideal case anyway to help out any nodes doing iRREP
----------------------------------------------
RREP
----------------------------------------------
current proposed
orig seq num tlv (no val) 4
targ seq num tlv 6
addr meaning tlv 5
seq num tlv (1val) 6 (type, length, flags, index, 2 byte value)
----------------------------------------------
total 10 11
Proposed version doesnt need OrigSeqNum TLV to indicate OrigAddr, doesnt
need a SeqNum value for OrigAddr at all.
----------------------------------------------
RERR with PktSource
----------------------------------------------
Assuming we have to identify unreachable addresses with a seqnum TLV, we
would set no value, but need index start and maybe index stop to identify
address(es), this gives 4 or 5 bytes.
current proposed
pktsrc 4 (type, length, flags, index)
seqnum (no val) 4 or 5 (type, length, flags,
index start, (index stop))
addr meaning tlv 5
If unreachable addr is seen as default and omitted, and index is included
only for pktsource.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
total 8 or 9 5
----------------------------------------------
RERR without PktSource
----------------------------------------------
Again, if we have to identify unreachable addresses with a seqnum TLV, we
would set no value, but need index start and maybe index stop to identify
address(es), this gives 4 or 5 bytes.
If only 1 address included, do we still need index?
current proposed
seqnum (no val) 4 or 5 (type flags length index
(index stop?))
0
Don't need an address meaning TLV if we have unreachable address as the
default value and it can be omitted.
We do need the address meaning TLV but it doesnt need value or index
fields. type flags length = 3 bytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
total 4 or 5 0
For future extensibility, we can define more values for the Address
Meaning TLV. Currently we'd need to define new TLVs (though they might be
necessary anyway depending on what the extension was trying to do).
What do you think? I'm sure I must have made mistakes?
Kind regards,
Vicky.
Regards,
Vicky.
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
<AODVv2 RFC5444 Representation (Replaces Draft 9 Sections 8 and 12)>
