Hello John,
Maybe instead of private email, it would be better to have Skype or
Google Hangout. I don't mind if anyone else joins.
Roughly speaking, reduced message size CAN counteract the effect of
other "processing elements" of a system. But usually the mechanism by
which the problem occurs can be stated specifically.
Anyway, I will forward the email to you again. I just feel that a
focused ear-to-ear discussion would get to mutual understanding sooner.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 6/10/2015 2:13 AM, John Dowdell wrote:
Charlie
My own view is that the AODVv2 messages are isolated from the air interface by at least the 5444 parser and likely also by any special multicast handler such as SMF. Thus saving bytes on messages may actually be counterproductive for saving bytes on the air interface.
However, since I'm working off a smartphone while travelling, if you still want me to review your email in question please forward it privately to me.
Regards
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lotte Steenbrink <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 10/06/2015 08:41
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Regarding the discussion abouttaggingeveryaddress.
Hi Charlie,
Am 10.06.2015 um 07:49 schrieb Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
Hello John,
Did you read my email analyzing the problem? I go over all the scenarios.
The TLV parser does not have to do any guesswork. The application does that.
Packets over the air cost at least tens of thousands as much energy as processing packets -- a useful fact about radios, and a reason to minimize transmission over the air.
It is not my purpose to embitter Stan, who is so mad he is not even listening. I don't know why. So I can't send anything or discuss anything with him. All they have to do is say the same thing over and over again and not provide any counterexamples, and suddenly discussion is off limits, energy is sapped, etc.
The energy is not “suddenly” sapped, and discussion is not “suddenly” off limits. We laid out the same arguments many times, and we didn't come to any new conclusions the last few times we discussed this issue. Your last E-Mail on the subject didn't contain anything new. I'd rather put my energy into working towards last call than have the same conversation all over again. I'm with Stan on this one.
Regards,
Lotte
Thanks for at least having the kindness to respond.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 6/9/2015 10:38 PM, John Dowdell wrote:
Charlie
Propose words if you like but I do not think it useful to pursue this one further. Personally I'm in favour of tagging everything since, as Lotte explained, the TLV parser has less guesswork and the structure can be extended in a less ambiguous fashion at a later date.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see a problem.
Regards
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Perkins <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 09/06/2015 19:14
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Regarding the discussion about taggingeveryaddress.
Hello John,
My understanding matches yours. Can you help me to reformulate my proposed email to Alvaro to avoid what irks Stan?
Basically, I am sort-of O.K. with making required business proposals, much like I am sort-of O.K. with voting for the
lesser of two evils. I just want it clearly understood that we are making a business resolution, not a technical
resolution.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 6/9/2015 10:00 AM, John Dowdell wrote:
All
Charlie, I understand you feel technical boundaries have been moved somewhat since 5444 was written. I'm ok with that, but...
Personally I took the view I did after deciding we were not going to win this particular battle, based on discussions with Henning. Technically right or wrong doesn't matter, sadly.
What matters to me is winning the war, that is getting to last call in Prague with nods of approval around the room.
So Charlie, this is definitely not personal, but this is business, and we had to make a business call.
Hope that makes sense.
Best regards
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ratliff, Stanley <mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 09/06/2015 17:23
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Re: Regarding the discussion about tagging everyaddress.
Charlie,
Sigh. IMHO, your synopsis is myopic, somewhat self-serving and "cherry-picked", and frankly, insulting.
That said, it *should* go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: You're free to discuss with whomever you choose - Alvaro, Alia, Clausen.... heck, even Jari and/or Abdussalam. Rock and roll. Take your best shot. Then I'll take mine.
Stan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aodvv2-discuss-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:06 PM
> To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Regarding the discussion about tagging every
> address.
>
>
> Hello folks,
>
> These are my understandings:
>
> - The discussion will take too long.
>
> - The technical merit does not matter. Reviewing technical arguments
> takes too long and would not change anyone's mind.
>
> - Henning has said the same thing over and over again and will not change.
>
> - We cannot win this (regardless of technical merit).
>
> So, on this basis, a majority of the AODVv2 author team has decided to cave
> in.
>
> If this is correct, I would like to inform Alvaro of the status of this issue. I
> want to hear his opinion about this.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
_____________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________
