Re: [manet] Three issues with PacketBB

[Thomas Clausen <Thomas.Clausen at polytechnique.fr>]

Alex,

On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> Right... I've missed that semantics part, simply because I've never  
> seen a protocol header having a 'address semantics' field.   
> Semantics is to me something to be specified in node behaviour,  
> like when node receives this bit does that, but not to encode in  
> messages...

This is not the intended meaning. semantics == "how you should  
interpret the encoded bit-sequence, in order to get an address out of  
it"

What that address then means is for the node/protocol/whatever to  
determine.

I wasn't aware that this could be ambiguously read from the text?

<SNIP>

> > mid is the uncompressed bit. Always is. Sometimes you have a common
> > head. Sometimes you have a common tail. Sometimes you have both.
> > Sometimes you have neither. mid is the bit in the middle that is
> > different. It can have zero length but that will be (I expect)
> > uncommon.
>
> 'mid' is one bit only?  It seems to me it can have a length too:  
> mid-length = address-length - head-length - tail-length.

Chris meant to say:

	"mid is the uncompressed part"

Which, yes, can be several bits long.

> Anyways,  would you agree a simple way to encode a NEMO Mobile  
> Network Prefix with PacketBB would look like this (ignoring  
> head:mid:tail features)(would you confirm the values of question  
> marks?):

I am sorry, it is not clear to me what you try to do. Are you  
intending to put an address into a TLV? If so, then while you  
possibly could do that, it's not the intended usage (addresses go in  
address blocks, possibly compressed) and I shall refrain from  
commenting on it. Or else, please try to explain what it is you are  
trying to do, since it is not clear.

Thomas





_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet