[aodvv2-discuss] Re: New revision draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-06c
- From: Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:33:41 +0100
Hi Charlie,
Am 26.12.2014 um 05:04 schrieb Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hello Lotte,
>
> Your reorganized section looks good to me. I notice that ...-06c.xml has
> been modified with the new text. I will grab it and make some grammatical
> corrections.
>
Thanks :)
> Your point about improperly situated text within the definition for
> SeqNum is well taken, and I will try to move the text to a better place
> within the specification before publishing.
>
> I am happy to get WG input on the new way of specifying data elements
> for RFC 5444 handling, but I hope it's O.K. if the author team gets first
> crack at making comments so we are all happy with it before going out
> to the rest of the world.
>
Yes, of course!
Cheers,
Lotte
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
> On 12/25/2014 6:10 PM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
>> Hi Charlie,
>>
>> Am 25.12.2014 um 20:04 schrieb Charlie Perkins
>> <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello John,
>>>
>>> I will mail you the files.
>>>
>>> Lotte, I also use Linux and Cygwin. I have a Linux laptop around
>>> here somewhere, but I usually just fire up a virtual machine.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, that's good to know. I added the .html anyway, to save you folks the
>> trouble.
>> Also, my question about that one sentence from the metrics section got me
>> thinking because I couldn't figure it out... I re-ordered some of the text
>> from that section and added subsections to give the section a bit more
>> structure. You can find the result (and the diff in html form ;)) in the the
>> cost_fn branch (i.e. here:
>> https://github.com/Lotterleben/AODVv2-Draft/tree/cost_fn). The language
>> probably needs to be smoothed out, but what do you all think? Does that make
>> sense?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lotte
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Charlie P.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/25/2014 10:22 AM, John Dowdell wrote:
>>>> Guys when do you want to publish? I'm on end of year break and unable to
>>>> see githib until Jan 5.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> John
>>>> From: Lotte Steenbrink
>>>> Sent: 25/12/2014 18:01
>>>> To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: New revision draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-06c
>>>>
>>>> Tiny followup:
>>>> I had totally forgotten that Charlie uses Windows, so i just added the
>>>> diff html on the packet_sketch branch. (To look at it, run git fetch to
>>>> get all branches and git checkout packet_sketch to change to my branch.
>>>> The file should be in the root directory) I'll keep it updated as I go
>>>> along.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Lotte
>>>>
>>>> Am 25.12.2014 um 16:06 schrieb Lotte Steenbrink
>>>> <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Charlie and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 24.12.2014 um 18:57 schrieb Charlie Perkins
>>>>> <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Lotte and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've put a new intermediate revision on Github. I'd like to
>>>>>> publish it to the IETF directories with your approval.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It includes extensive changes from "node" terminology
>>>>>> to "address" terminology wherever appropriate, and gets
>>>>>> rid of the "Ndx" terminology in favor of the lists that
>>>>>> include null elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still not convinced by the list terminology, to be honest. (For the
>>>>> record: I'm not convinced by using Ndx either, because it refers to 5444
>>>>> packet internals that shouldn't be dictated or described in detail by
>>>>> AODVv2, in my opinion. I hope my RFC5444 suggestions are able to reflect
>>>>> how I think the language should be... More on that below.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I've fixed some typos, as you can see in
>>>>> https://github.com/Lotterleben/AODVv2-Draft/commit/f1fcc1902b90733faf0270af853c2f9a0f691b9a
>>>>> . I hope I didn't fix anything that wasn't broken...
>>>>>
>>>>> And a few newbie questions:
>>>>> * I've noticed the text you added to the Sequence
>>>>> Number (SeqNum) part of the Terminology
>>>>> section. If I understood it right, the terminology section is meant to be
>>>>> a quick reference, but shouldn't really contain instructions for the
>>>>> implementor, which is why I would have looked for the information in the
>>>>> text you added in 6.4. Sequence Numbers. Am I missing something here?
>>>>>
>>>>> * in section 6.6, you added the following text:
>>>>> Let "Cost(R)", where 'R' is the route for which the Cost is to be
>>>>> evaluated; the route table entry for R includes the information about the
>>>>> metric type for R.
>>>>> ... Maybe it's just me, but I can't quite figure out what that sentence
>>>>> means.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lotte, if you have text for the purpose of improving the
>>>>>> description for supplying protocol elements to RFC 5444
>>>>>> (e.g., OrigAddr with OrigSeqnum, etc.) please let me
>>>>>> know. I am willing to help finish it once I get the basic
>>>>>> idea of what you want to do. It would be nice to put this
>>>>>> into the above-mentioned revision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said in our hangout, I'd like to run my changes by the MANET Mailing
>>>>> List before adding them to the draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I wrote a little script that lets you run rfcdiff over branches,
>>>>> showing how *one* file differs on two branches. It's in the root
>>>>> directory of your git, and if you run
>>>>>
>>>>> ./aodvdiff.sh master packet_sketch txt/draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-05.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> You will get the rfcdiff html output showing all my changes. (I'm rubbish
>>>>> at bash scripting, so I'm sure the script could be improved greatly, but
>>>>> it should do the trick)
>>>>> What I've done up until now was:
>>>>> * added a sketch of a RREQ as I thought it might be useful to the appendix
>>>>> * added subsections describing existing addresses and TLVs (The text
>>>>> would have to be smoothed out a lot, but the idea should be clear,
>>>>> hopefully)
>>>>> * moved some text around
>>>>> Next up is going through sections 7 and up and adjusting them to my
>>>>> changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, I was thinking if we could solve our quibbles with the
>>>>> “Interface-ness” of RFC5444 with an additional draft that describes
>>>>> guidelines on how to build a RFC5444 packet/message builder that is
>>>>> optimized to AODVv2's needs? This way, we can keep the description of
>>>>> AODVv2 RFC5444 packets as generic as possible in the AODVv2 document,
>>>>> but still provide packets optimized for AODVv2 to everyone that needs
>>>>> them.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Lotte
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be nice to do this as a Christmas present to [manet].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Charlie P.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
