[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Draft 13e

  • From: Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:38:45 +0000

Same, I gave it the proofread I wanted to, it's time!!

Vicky.

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Lotte Steenbrink <lsteen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

wrote:

John,

No issues here. Let's ask for WGLC.

+1 :)

Regards,
Lotte


Regards,
Stan


-----Original Message-----
From: aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aodvv2-discuss-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Dowdell
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:41 PM
To: AODVv2 Discuss <aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Draft 13e

Ladies and Gents

I’d like to take the feel of us all here and ask if we have any
outstanding
worries now that urgently need to be resolved.

We have a reason to want to move forwards, publish the draft and ask
for
WGLC. The reason (as Alvaro said to me in Yokohama when I asked him why
manet was not meeting) is that the passing of AODVv2 and DLEP through
WGLC and into the IESG is blocking any further business in the manet
group.
I’d like to get at least one of those and preferably both done real
soon, but
this list is about only one, so let’s not concern ourselves with DLEP
here.

Therefore if we’re all comfortable with what we have now, its publish
time
again.

If not, please state below, briefly in one bullet per issue, what you
are not
comfortable with, and I’ll split that out into one issue per email
thread so we
can discuss the issue fully and get things to consensus. No big
explanations
please, save that for the other threads, if you have things that really
won’t
wait until last call.

Best regards
John

On 24 Nov 2015, at 13:06, Lotte Steenbrink
<lsteen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Hi all,
following up on the MTU discussion: I just talked to Henning and he
confirmed our assumptions. AODVv2 should not be concerned with the
MTU, and the RFC5444 packet creator will fragment any messages that
are too big. They way in which this fragmentation is conducted is up
to the
RFC5444 implementation:
It might take an educated guess and keep the message TLVs in all
message fragments, spreading out obnly the addresses across several
messages, or it might let the protocol constructing the message
specify which TLVs
*must* be kept in every fragment, should the message be fragmented
(which is what Henning's oonf API does), or something completely
different.
We've specified which parts of a RERR MUST be present in every RERR,
and that should be enough information for the implementing person,
should they decide to specify any kind of sophisticated splitting *to
their
API*.

Thanks for making this change Vicky :)

Regards,
Lotte

Hi all,

Made a little mistake in the last one, in that I hadnt completely
removed all the MTU stuff!

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.
_____________________________________________________





Other related posts: