[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Appendices and RFC 5444 (was Writing for the future, was Appendices and RFC 5444)

  • From: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:08:24 -0500

Charlie,

I think it's debatable as to which one of us is "standing in the way", so
you might want to re-think the phraseology there.

I'll say it again - it's time to pull those sections.

Stan


On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Charlie Perkins <
charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Hello Stan,
>
> You have the strongest negative opinion on this.  But, now, Vicky
> has done a stellar job of updating the sections.  I think you should
> not stand in the way of keeping the sections for the next revision.
>
> Also please keep in mind that it will be me who gets shot at, not
> you.  Plus, you have to allow for the possibility of success!  What if
> people like the updated code?
>
> As I mentioned before, it's easy to take the sections out, but
> hard to get them back in.  And I do think it will be useful for the
> implementers.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
> On 3/2/2015 2:02 PM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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> 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
>>>
>>
>
>

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. aodvv2-discuss
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2015