Just to let you all know that I am alive and I will do this. But now
the flight is boarding, so .... later...
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 4/11/2016 8:44 AM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
Lotte/All –
Yes, I think the next step is for Charlie to craft an email for the MANET list, stating what is here – that he did the groundwork, and has the support of those people. In that regard, the included email exchange from Pascal is pure gold. If there is a need to wait a day or two (with the appropriate nagging) for Alvaro to provide a clarification, I’m good with that, and I summarily appoint Charlie as the point person for nagging... ;-)
But, this *must* be floated on the MANET list, followed by the inevitable howling/whining that will come. This needs to happen to effectively establish that those howlers/whiners are "in the rough", and we can consider the issue closed.
Charlie, one additional point - please be prepared to further leverage your contacts with both Pascal and JP (I am ready as well). Their contributions on the MANET list for just this one topic, essentially re-stating their support, will be of benefit, as it would sway most (but not all) WG participants in MANET.
Regards,
Stan
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
HI Charlie, hi all,
Am 08.04.2016 um 04:04 schrieb Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
Hello folks,
Stan suggested that I ask Pascal's opinion about using the metric
table specified in RFC 6551.
Pascal thinks it's a great idea...
Alvaro didn't see any problem, although I am still waiting for
his exact clarification.
J-P Vasseur ([roll] co-chair) was very supportive when I first
specified it. In fact it might have been his suggestion, I can't
remember.
Fewer tables doing the exact same thing is going to be an easy
sale at the IESG.
Thanks for doing the research and asking all those people! :)
What’s the next step regarding the issue? Taking the answers
you’ve gotten to [manet]?
Best regards,
Lotte
Regards,
Charlie P.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Request for your opinion, hopefully a very quick
matter
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 01:14:04 +0000
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
.......
On the metrics side I d love to see AODV and MANET in general reuse the RPL
metrics, extend them and then see ROL benefit from that. I can't figure why
that would be a problem???
Regards,
Pascal
> Le 7 avr. 2016 à 19:37, Charlie Perkins<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
>
> Hello Pascal,
>
> AODVv2 cites the metric table in RFC 6551 (section 6.1), in an attempt to
reduce the number of different tables of metric types for IANA to maintain all
potentially saying the same or nearly identical metric types.
>
> The claim has been made that this is an error because the IANA table
belongs to RPL.
>
> Do you think AODVv2 should have it's own table of metric types?
>
> Thanks in advance for your opinion about this.
>
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
