Vicky,
We need to close on this item. I appreciate the arguments on both
sides of the discussion. Don't mean to be blunt, but "I'm undecided"
doesn't help a whole lot... ;-)
I'm just tired of being beaten silly by the RFC 5444 authors as to (1)
that the AODVv2 editorial team doesn't understand RFC 5444, (2) that
we're not using it right, (3) that it's really, really easy, and
should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer, and (4) why
can't we get it right.
I'm still of the opinion that you don't hand your adversary (and it
unfortunately HAS become adversarial) the ammunition needed to blow
you up.
Regards,
Stan
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Victoria Mercieca
<vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Stan,
I think Charlie has a point that the RFC 5444 stuff would be
useful to people who arent going to use a parser. But I also agree
with you that we could get a lot of grief if it's wrong. So I'm
undecided!
Would it be an option to remove it but to leave a note in there
that should the reader wish to see some implementation advice on
the RFC 5444 message format, they can contact the authors? Charlie
what do you think? We could then worry about the correctness
separately to the draft?
Regards,
Vicky.
On Monday, March 2, 2015, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
OK, gang -
Monday has pretty much come and gone, at least in the CET
timezone. Since we have a deadline for submission of the
draft, I think we need to finally settle on the issue of the
amount of RFC 5444 discussion in Appendix A and Appendix B.
To recap, we have (I believe) 3 opinions to remove the
references, 1 opinion to keep them.
I'm ready to declare that consensus has been reached, and the
5444 tutorial/discussion/recommendation/however-we-classify-it
goes bye-bye.
Differing opinions? Serve 'em up quick.
Regards,
Stan
