Re: [manet] New definition of term 'TLV' in PacketBB

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

On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> Thomas Clausen wrote:
> > Alex,
> > I appreciate your reviewing of the MANET WG specs.
> > Generally, I think that it might be advantageous if you try to  
> > understand WHY the specs are the way they are, rather than to launch
> >  into observing a difference with some other similar mechanism and
> > then taking this as an indication that something is broken.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean something was broken; just that it may be  
> unnecessarily complex.

Sorry, Alex, you can't just say that without understanding the context.

Let me give an absurd example:

	I have 5 computers at home. In order to network those, I just need
	something simple. IPv6 addresses are too long, and all those IETF
	protocols are just unnecessarily complex.

That's the same line of argument as you're usin: I've identified one  
particular case, and going by that case, I judge the world to be  
unnecessarily complex.

packetbb is designed with a large set of conflicting constraints,  
including, but not limited to:

	- efficient packet/message size, including payloads and headers
	- simple parsing logic
	- extensibility/flexibility, such that we won't have to rewrite the  
spec
	  (and our code) every time somebody has a new idea)

and a whole host of other criteria that I shall not list here. A lot  
of effort has been made to try to balance those. Occasionally, some  
simplicity in the parsing logic has been sacrificed for improved  
compactness in the format. Occasionally it's the other way around.

packetbb was designed as a building block for MANET wg protocols, and  
so has been discussed exhaustively in that context.


Thomas




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