Subject: Re: [manet] Addition Comparing Questions (was Re: Resolving the Reactive Protocol issue)

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:42:13 -0500

AB:

Thank you for this kind note. As the last few days indicated, I sent in my
technical questions. I am also looking for the implementation reports we did
in 802.11s.  I'll try to send them this week.

Sue 

From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 7:36 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Addition Comparing Questions (was Re: [manet] Resolving the
Reactive Protocol issue)

Hi Sue,

I will try to answer the last two as I think it is addressed to WG
participants as well, see below;

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Susan Hares <[email-masked]> wrote:

Additional questions: 

1)  Will you suggest a style guide as well as a solution?  In order to vote,
I reviewed 2 months of email list discussion, and 

much of it had to do with document style issues. 

2)  In parallel with your query, can I still ask technical questions
regarding people's comparison answer? 

3)      May I in parallel provide reactive trade-off from 802.11 work in
mesh? This includes research and deployment experience with mesh networks
(2-15 nodes).

Yes, please provide with your opinion/experience as it will help in the new
reactive protocol that we will be working on,

4)  Is this IP only or are we considering Reactive protocols directly over
layer 2? 

Yes, I am interested that it is only IP reactive protocol as the
MANET-charter is focused on, but one of the proposed protocol seem to be
working with or without IP which I believe out of scope. As mentioned by
someone before on the list that some MANETs do use reactive protocols in L2.
However, IMHO, considering reactive protocol directly over L2 can/may be
interested to us after completing the reactive over IP.

AB