[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Responding to MANET comments

  • From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:06:40 -0700

Hello Vicky,

I thought that our response to Chris should suggest a resolution for each of his points.

Regarding the list:

On 8/14/2015 7:52 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:


I was just looking at that. I didnt realise we hadnt responded to Chris.
I'd say the ones we havent fully resolved are:

* same address on multiple interfaces

What do you think has to be resolved?

* not including non hopcount metrics


Is it insufficient that we leave other metrics for later specification? I thought wording issues in the current draft were resolved.

* we could explain the reason for why a stored invalid route can’t
be overwritten by a new higher metric route, from our earlier
emails, I think i did update the draft too with a bit of explanation.


This is about LoopFree(), right? So, isn't it resolved?

* IP’s routing table being separate, and forwarding rules


I thought this was also resolved.

* situations where RREQs are not regenerated?


Is this about reduced multicast forwarding? I can craft some temporary language about that...

* IANA comments may not be completely addressed as Chris wanted


Can you say what remains? I thought we had discussed his points.

* security section hasnt been changed:

(Section 13, para 4, what’s said is true, but it’s not as simple as this makes it appear. (And there are issues of information leakage in other layers.)

Section 13, use of sequence number as timestamp is good. Should think about how fast 16 bits wraps and if that’s an issue. (Not saying it is, just food for thought.)

Section 13, specifying TIMESTAMP data, suggest indicate algorithm number.)

I'll try to take a look and see if we can do the last one. For the second one, 30,000 route discoveries take a pretty good long time, so wrapping should not be an issue. I can ask more about what's wanted for the first one.

* Appendix A hasnt changed.


I don't remember what Chris was asking for on this, I'll have to go take a look. However, I can say we are collecting additional requirements to put into Appendix A -- would that be all right?

This actually looks like a lot of unresolved points :( but they mostly overlap with Thomas Clausen's comments which I guess we will go to the mailing list to discuss...

In regards to Thomas' comments, I was drafting an email to respond and start discussion on the recurring issues he highlighted. I should also go through our most recent emails to identify anything outstanding. If you would like to respond to Chris, I could respond to Thomas? My summary is included below in case anyone wants to check it before I send?


I have not yet gone through that, will do shortly.


Regards,
Charlie P.


Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. aodvv2-discuss
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2015