Hi Charlie,
Am 17.02.2016 um 20:51 schrieb Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Hello folks,
I really don't think it's a good idea to remove the use of hop limit and hop
count. Otherwise, intermediate route reply is hamstrung because it can't
work properly unless every node implements whatever the replacement new
option is.
And that is a real loss.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 2/17/2016 1:03 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
Hi Lotte,
There really hasnt been much change to the draft (I doubt its worth
releasing a new version). I moved IANA stuff around based on Chris
Dearlove's comments, and removed references to hop limit and hop count (but
the expanding rings multicast section still refers to msg-hop-limit). And
yes the SHOULD-normative stuff I updated based on John's review.
I've tried to write something for the security issue basically summing up
the comments about having a transitive trust model, but theres more work to
be done (e.g. how to add the TLVs, probably more) ...I'll send it in its own
thread, hopefully it will spark some comments / suggestions.
We also said that the multiple-interface, same IP address topic needed
further discussion (points 11/17), but said "we dont *think* theres a
problem" and the draft hasnt been changed.
Issue 15 we asked a question in response also, about "route to a specific
address".
Regards,
Vicky
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
since we've been firmly asked to be more transparent with the MANET list, I
was wondering if we should send a little update e-mail (or even publish a
new version), and how we want to proceed solving the remaining open issues.
Looking at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg18384.html ;
and the follow-ups), the current open questions seem to be:
* [Use of msg-hop-limit and msg-hop-count: done]
* 7182 and security: to be solved. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to
tackle this one? Do we maybe know somebody who can help us add the required
analysis in a structured manner?
* 10. Terminology and elsewhere - address: we've said:
“AODVv2: We ask for clarification on this issue. We use the phrase “routable
and unicast” in the draft with respect to OrigAddr and TargAddr. We dont
mean to exclude addresses from the private address ranges. But we dont want
to request routes for multicast, indeterminate, link-local, or loopback
addresses. This is not about router interface addresses which are used for
AODVv2.”
And, iirc, we didn't get an answer yet. Does this one deserve its own
discussion thread on the MANET list? ;)
* [19. interfaces list - use of “SHOULD” : this, and the use of
"maybe-normative language", is done now too, right?]
* [IANA Considerations confusion: done]
Did I miss any? What do you think?
Regards, Lotte
