Hello John,
As mentioned earlier, it will be tomorrow because I have meetings all
day long and continuing into the night.
Could you tell me the dangling points related to my follow-up to your
earlier commentary?
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 11/17/2015 1:48 PM, John Dowdell wrote:
Ok let us know when you're done please.
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Perkins <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 17/11/2015 20:47
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Draft 13c
Hello folks,
Please let me review the draft first!
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 11/17/2015 12:10 PM, Ratliff, Stanley wrote:
So if we’re all good, then let’s post it and ask for WGLC.
John or Vicky – I nominate either of you to write-up the email asking the working group for WGLC.
Regards,
Stan
*From:*aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Victoria Mercieca
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:34 PM
*To:* aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Draft 13c
Thanks :-)
On 17 Nov 2015 14:19, "John Dowdell" <john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Vicky
Finally found a few minutes to look at the diff …. good work.
Thanks
John
On 10 Nov 2015, at 08:52, Victoria Mercieca
<vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just in case it got lost in the reply to the previous thread...
V.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Victoria Mercieca* <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [aodvv2-discuss] Review of draft 13a (October 25
edition)
To: "aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Hi John (and Charlie),
Thanks for all the feedback, I've been busy updating.
Attached a diff and draft 13c, and comments in line for
important stuff:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:39 AM, John Dowdell
<john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all
So here’s my review of -13a. I’m aware that there is a
-13b but since I’m halfway through -13a it makes sense to
carry on. Apologies if I’m raking up stuff that’s already
been addressed.
Section 1. Overview
I’d like to see an extra paragraph between paras 2 and 3
that explains some more about AODVv2 sending messages
that are converted into packets by the RFC5444 parser. It
would make the existing paragraph 3 a bit clearer. Maybe
move the last but one paragraph starting "AODVv2 control
plane messages use the …” to between paras 2 and 3.
The paragraph starting "AODVv2 uses sequence numbers to
identify …” is not compatible with the text at section
4.4 which suggests that loop freedom is based purely on
sequence numbers “As a consequence, loop freedom is
assured”. I think that last sentence should be deleted
from section 4.4, or at least modified to state that
sequence numbers form only part of the loop freedom
calculation. While we’re here, the sentence in section
4.4 is also incompatible with section 5 bullet 5 “A
function to analyse routes …”
Last paragraph: I think the word “plane" should be
inserted between “control” and “messages” (to read
“control plane messages” since that makes it consistent
with the last but one paragraph (the one I asked to be
moved above).
For consistency, I changed everything to "control message" rather than "control plane message".
Section 2. Terminology
The definition of Neighbor says "Neighbors exchange
routing information and attempt to verify
bidirectionality of the link to a neighbor before
installing a route via that neighbor into the Local Route
Set.” It doesn’t say that if the bidirectionally test
fails, we do not install a route via that neighbor.
Possibly just remove the words “attempt to”.
The definition of TargSeqNum says "An AODVv2 Data Element
used in a Route Reply message, containing the sequence
number of the AODVv2 router which originated the Route
Reply.” could be reworded to say "An AODVv2 Data Element
used in a Route Reply message, containing a sequence
number generated by the AODVv2 router which originated
the Route Reply.”
Section 3: Applicability Statement
I believe the opening sentence should be expanded to
briefly illustrate the differences between AODVv2 as a
reactive protocol and the proactive protocols.
Paragraph 5: “Since the route discovery process typically
results …”. I would suggest replacing “typically results
in a route being established” with “requires a route to
be established”
Para 8: I recall the question being asked before
(probably by Thomas Clausen) about whether a single
router interface can support multiple IP addresses. If we
do, please say, and if not, please also say.
Section 4.3 Neighbor Table
Definition of Neighbor.ResetTime
[The entire original message is not included.]
