Subject: [Manet-dt] packetbb - format only

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:07:01 -0800

While talking last night, we discussed whether the packetbb document
should contain some processing semantics on top of the format. In
general, it was stated that though protocols might assume treatment of
certain fields their processing would not be specified in the 
packetbb document.

If you feel some processing behavior should be included in packetbb,
please speak up.

Ian Chakeres

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

---

From: "Luke Klein-Berndt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:31:32 -0500

I am not sure if this needs to be called out in the PacketBB, routing docs
or at all: The overall destination of the packet is contained in the IP
header Dest field. This might be self evident, but might be good to state
since the packet is relying on a separate protocol feature but not calling
it out.

In general it might be good to have a section on minimum expected
processing/routing behavior. Perhaps this could be a separate document. It
would be helpful to implementers to see what they could cut and still serve
as a useful intermediate router. It would also give an idea what protocol
designers could expect. An example might be that if a router is going to
process part of a packet it, it has to process all of it... or something
like this.

-Luke

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Manet-dt] packetbb - format only

Ian Chakeres

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:42:29 -0800

I am on the fence about this issue.

The example we've been using is MaxHops (and HopCount). Should it be
required that MaxHops be decremented at each hop? Or are there certain
scenarios when it shouldn't/wouldn't be decremented and that is ok
too?

I guess I am leaning toward not specifying behavior, since it is a
slippery slope. There might be times when a protocol wants to do
something slightly different.

Either way, I think we agree upon the meaning of the field.

Ian