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

[Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>]

Thomas Clausen wrote:
> 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.

Haha, I think I understand what you mean.

> 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.

Right... I may have been wrong.  The PacketBB is just complex, not 
necessarily "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.

Ok Thomas, please don't take my remarks as discarding.  PacketBB is 
designed for MANET protocols, identifies its commonalities, and respects 
many MANET requirements.  I agree with what's designed by consensus and 
for a Working Group.

Just please help me picture a PacketBB message (header or body) that 
contains an IPv6 Mobile Network Prefix (an IPv6 address and its prefix 
length).  I want to do that correctly and according to existing 
consensus.  I'm not looking for immediate feedback, just when you think 
it's possible.

Or maybe I shouldn't ask for this encoding at all?  Am I pushing in the 
wrong direction?

Alex

> Thomas


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________


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