IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] Notifications from the IETF tools Issue Tracker

"Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@computer.org> Mon, 21 January 2013 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <charliep@computer.org>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B928B21F8654 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:03:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.466, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-zD6wRhzGyk for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C818221F873B for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [107.1.141.74] (helo=[192.168.252.247]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charliep@computer.org>) id 1TxOWp-0007pD-0s; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:03:39 -0500
Message-ID: <50FDAD22.7080706@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:03:30 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@computer.org>
Organization: Saratoga Blue Skies
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
References: <50EDF2E7.3020105@computer.org> <50EE6F28.6040300@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <50EE70F0.2020604@computer.org> <50EFB929.3000901@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <F6051ABE-2978-4A97-A16E-84E68FAE5ED6@herberg.name> <6F1CF924-B19C-4875-B59B-68DE7083323A@thomasclausen.org> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D24FF052D@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <50F5850E.3060809@computer.org> <CADnDZ89c32o0AbtEag_=T8ym3xoE37p5zQdAfxLPa3afN0KzYQ@mail.gmail.com> <50F5B539.5000502@computer.org> <CAK=bVC8WhUPHAuXmjiHe7-izCxRwMGHfCRk4wLC4_-eHc+utjQ@mail.gmail.com> <50FD7BD3.1050803@computer.org> <EE99467F-9DAF-4429-AF6F-0030C977150D@thomasclausen.org>
In-Reply-To: <EE99467F-9DAF-4429-AF6F-0030C977150D@thomasclausen.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000606090607090307020800"
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad86a68cd78fd663cea9f5eabbf1b0843d54350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 107.1.141.74
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Notifications from the IETF tools Issue Tracker
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:03:40 -0000

On 1/21/2013 12:37 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
>
>
> On 21 janv. 2013, at 18:33, "Charles E. Perkins" 
> <charliep@computer.org <mailto:charliep@computer.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hello Ulrich,
>>
>> First, let's agree that, all other things being equal, position 
>> independence
>> is better than positional dependence.  Then, it's a matter of trading off
>> that positive feature versus other potential negatives.  In the extreme,
>> no one would add a kilobyte to the header just to preserve position
>> independence.
>
> Reductio ad absurdum.

Usually, the phrase "Reductio ad absurdum." is followed by QED.

>
>> Next, please observe that Henning has proposed a change to RteMsg
>> design that offers positional independence.  I hope to write it up today
>> for evaluation.
>>
>> Third, we have lots of experience with positional dependent designs
>> that are extensible -- not related to [manet].  To me this is almost a
>> no-brainer, but I also know that the RFC 5444 (and, perhaps more
>> inclusively, the XML) experts have relevant experience. Using the same
>> parser is, in my view, not a factor that should determine the outcome
>> of this design decision.
>
> That is, then, because you have not been in the business of 
> implementing protocols and multi-protocol MANET routers. It is a HUGE 
> benefit to be able to share parsing code, especially given that 5444 
> is (if used properly) both flexible, efficient to parse and efficient 
> in encoding messages. It also gives you some nice benefits of running 
> multiple protocols jointly (as is the case with NHDP/OLSRv2/SMF) on 
> the same device.

So you'd rather optimize for parser development time over
battery lifetime?   At the beginning of my earlier email, I
referred to "tradeoffs".  I'll stand by that.  I dispute the notion
that one has trouble using multiple other protocols if one also
uses a protocol with positional AddrBlks, and I'd be interested
to see a specific counter-example.


>
>>
>>
>> Fourth, I think there are some noticeable problems with RFC 5444
>> that need fixing, but I have avoided making that into part of the
>> discussion about reactive protocols.
>
> Unless you are willing to make the arguments, please don't spread such 
> misinformation.

O.K.  I'll bookmark your challenge and get back to it next month.

>
>> For now, the task is to make
>> RFC 5444 serve the purpose which it is mandated to serve. That has
>> proved difficult enough.
>
> This is wrong.

Well, Ian spent a lot of time on it but couldn't do it so "easily".
I don't consider myself a beginner, but I find it at minimum tedious
and at worst error-prone.  But -- I'm getting better at it.


>
> A multitude of MANET protocols have been designed to use RFC5444, 
> including reactive protocols, without any problems.
>
> It's extremely easy, even, once one understands RFC5444.

See the above.  If I am challenged to get testimonials to the
contrary from other people, then I'll have to wait.   I'm not at
all interested in arguing about it, especially right now!   I will
at least say that other software developers seem more willing
to accept feedback.

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email