[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [manet] comments on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-04.txt
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com]
> I am sure you have already guessed my response, but the
> document already cites four works in progress so why not
> this one too - especially since it presumably documents
> *the* MANET Architecture.
The difference is that we can be pretty confident that the
others will progress to RFC before or at the same time as
this one - three because they are from the same authors,
and the IANA draft because it's simple and I'm confident
it will go into the process soon. Manetarch we don't have
that control over, and it's not as close to final. But I
would like to be referencing manetarch, though not if it
causes delay (e.g. if by putting it in we are forced to
wait for it to be published, and something causes a serious
delay). So at the moment it's not in, but we also would
like to put it in, and I for one need to consult on this.
> The issue here is that there is a disparity between the two
> uses of the term "link" that needs to be resolved to avoid
> ambiguity. Perhaps you would be more amenable to the following
> slight re-wording of the proposal:
Closer, but we need to consider directionality. At the moment
can we agree to reconsider the definition of link, without
coming to a firm decision on it. (Actually that applies to
all of Fred's comments. You're getting my responses, but I'm
not the only author. We'll be collecting together all the
responses we get - including some of our own - and going
through them.
> That doesn't quite do it for me. What would work would be
> to change: "As a response," to: "Responsively," in the
> second bullet.
I need to check the grammar (I don't have it in front of me)
but that sounds like a good idea.
> How about:
>
> "Two addresses are considered equal if and only if they match
> and their associated prefix lengths are also equal."
That I like.
> Actually, since [MANETARCH] is going as Informational, perhaps
> citing as informative is sufficient?
Could be.
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet