Charlie,
Sure, I'm good with you publishing that draft. And please follow-up with
the on-list comments. Let's get this item put to bed, once and for all.
I'm in complete agreement about the vitriolic nature on the mailing list.
But the truth of the matter is that we have little choice - unless & until
this is thrashed-out on-list, publication *cannot* proceed. So it's time to
put on the flame-retardant gear, and venture forth.
Regards,
Stan
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Charlie Perkins <
charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Stan,
I'll publish the "using RFC 6621 draft". Then either I or any one of you
can relay Vicky's comments to the mailing list; please let me know if you
would like for me to do it.
It would be nicer to use the mailing list for discussions if the general
mood were constructive instead of vitriolic.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/3/2016 6:30 AM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Charlie Perkins <
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Vicky,MANET list, essentially reiterating what's in Charlie's draft. Heck, it
I am O.K. with what you said, but I want to reiterate that the *reason*
that RFC 6621 was published was *exactly* so that protocols like AODVv2
could use it. I know this because I was one of the main contributors --
specifically the parts about hashing for duplicate detection and much of
the part about CDSs. Somehow RFC 5444 seems to have gotten in the way. I
also did a thorough analysis of the chances of failure due to hash
collisions and the recommendation makes the failure mode far less common
than packet drops due to interference.
Anyway, the suggestion that RFC 6621 is inapplicable relies on a
distortion of reality.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/3/2016 1:21 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
I believe that we caused a lot of confusion with our attempt to explain
this at the time, which is why it was removed from the core draft. Yes,
6621 is inapplicable in that (I think due to the rules John pointed out in
another email I just read) the packets would not be deemed to be
forwardable by 6621. In any case we dont want them to be forwarded by some
type of 6621 implementation since we want AODVv2 to process and regenerate
them instead. 6621 also discusses duplicate suppression, which is handled
by AODVv2 itself already, plus I'm not sure if the way 6621 determines
duplicity would achieve AODVv2's idea of redundancy. Lets not argue about
that anyway...because ...
I think what Charlie was getting at was that if AODVv2 knew whether the
router was elected as a forwarding router then it could decide whether it
should regenerate messages, as a general rule rather than on a packet by
packet basis. I think this technique is still covered by statements like
"The router MAY choose not to regenerate the RREQ, for example if the
router is heavily loaded or low on energy and therefore unwilling to
advertise routing capability for more traffic." This covers implementers
who wish to be clever with any 6621-inspired decisions, without getting
into the details and confusing people.
Charlie's draft explains this, but it seems unnecessary to have a
separate draft for such a short explanation. Why don't we explain this to
MANET properly, get some feedback, and if they still hate it, leave the
draft without any mention, because the statement I quoted is enough (in my
opinion anyway) to allow an implementation to use some 6621-influenced
technique to decide whether to regenerate.
I'm good with this approach - someone creates an explanation for the
could even attach the draft. We then point out that 6621-inspired decisions
*could* be made by an implementer. I'm positive that a follow-on question
will be "Suppose you have an implementation. I have my own implementation.
You chose to make some 6621-inspired decisions. I didn't. Will these two
different AODVv2 implementations inter-operate?" It would be fantastic if
the explanation includes text as to whether or not this is OK (obviously,
if it's NOT OK, that would be a show-stopper).
I'll also say again - we need to get these discussions out on the MANET
list. We're going to face more and more flak for trying to keep this
private.
Regards,
Stan
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Charlie Perkins <
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello again folks,
It seems like I recall seeing a complaint by Christopher Dearlove to the
effect that RFC 6621 is simply inapplicable to AODVv2. Is that comment
something I should respond to on the mailing list?
I am re-sending the attached draft to show just how wrong his complaint
is. Please let me know if you have any comments.
I sent it out earlier (on November 26 of last year) but did not get any
comments. It's very short. Please take a look.
Regards,
Charlie P.
