Hi all,
On 4 Apr 2016 18:08, "Stan Ratliff" <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2016, at 5:34 PM, John Dowdell <john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx>
to where the explanatory text is?
Yes, post to show progress :)
OK looking at some TODOs now
1. The ones in the definitions; is it worth linking from the definition
keeping that rabbit hole shut, and I’d rather not open it again. Yes it is2. Applicability statement. Sigh. Wireless networks. We discussed
anyone know how to fix that yet? No. We kicked it around again in DTN this3. Page 9: yes there is an issue with hop-by-hop trust. Correct. Does
appears to be two bytes worth, think this is the same in DLEP (Stan can you4. Page 17, maximum single hop metric value. The current IETF favourite
you make everything as big as possible ( a long long), then nobody will ask
DLEP tends to go with 8-octet data items. We followed the notion that if
But in this application, I'd think 2 bytes is sufficient.
Stanit’s only coming from one hop away. Is there a short time value we can
5. RREP_Ack timeout. I’d expect to get an Ack back pretty quickly since
was now the working space for routes before they go live into the kernel?6. Check RREP_Ack in MRMT. Why isn’t this the right place, thought this
to be broken….suggest removing it JWD TODO) need some clarification. We do7. (What does this mean? How would one determine a link to a neighbor
beers.8. Page 24 sect 6.6 the table for waiting routes is the MRMT, is it not?
That’s all for now. Lotte, you are owed a very significant number of
lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Cheers
John
On 4 Apr 2016, at 20:59, Ratliff, Stanley <sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Go!
Regards,
Stan
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Lotte Steenbrink <
decided to publish asap, I thought I'd give you a quick status update and
Hi all,
since we're allowed to submit Drafts again now (I think) and we
of Justin's review if you want to look for the remaining 26 TODOs, it's the
DONE:
----
* All JWD!s are resolved now
* out of 90 JWD and JWD! comments, 64 are done (I've attached my copy
JWD) We decided to add a separate* added revised security considerations
TO DO:
----
* Most notable of the 26 JWDs that are yet to be resolved:
+ (is there some table that lists routes that are being waited on?
for that, but every time I set out to do that,RREP table that lists them and I've volunteered to write text
of tables AODVv2 needs by now, andI got more confused... I'm starting to worry about the amount
info without having to add another table,I've been picking Vickys brain on how to achieve storing that
"[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Justin's review"but it's an ongoing process.
+ the approaching the limit thing we're currently discussing in
multiplexer wording, so that hasn't changed yet* some TODOs in security considerations (see github)
* still waiting for Chris' feedback regarding the revised 5444
prefixes to make Thomas happy (I'm planning to do that tomorrow afternoon)* Make it more clear that AODVv2 currently doesn't support RREQs for
individual
What do you think?
Regards,
Lotte
<draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 (2).txt>
<draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14d-from-c.diff.html>
<draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-14d.txt>
_____________________________________________________
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
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
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________