Subject: [manet] #17: Proposed Reactive Protocols' Alternative Message Formats

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:33:22 -0000

#17: Proposed Reactive Protocols' Alternative Message Formats

 A proposal approach; a)to leave the same address array format as it is in
 draft-25 but to let all TLVs position independent, b) do as in [1] to
 maintain the advantage of [2], it may satisfy all opinions, or c) we may
 use the messages format of draft [3] and make modification if necessary
 for the AODVv2 function. (I omitted the fourth alternative d) which
 proposes to not use RFC5444, because we follow the decision made before
 that this first standard MUST use RFC5444 and RFC5498)

 In [1] you leave the addressing independent in 5444 messages as done in
 proactive protocol but with associate TLVs (which explain order) for each
 address or address type of its info of order-num and/or time added by the
 router, and/or hop-count-of-message. In this way any router will know
 where/when that address was located and it relations with others. So
 addresses and their TLV in the messages are independent, but position info
 of addresses can be understood router.

 Please advise your opinion,

 [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg14795.html

 [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg14803.html

 [3] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-clausen-lln-loadng-08.txt

 Best Regards

 Abdussalam Baryun,
 University of Glamorgan, UK

-- 
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:  Abdussalam Baryun
     Type:  enhancement                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                       |  Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  dymo                        |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document          |   Keywords:  RFC5444, Address
                                        |  TLVs
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/17>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>

---

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:47:31 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Maybe another alternative way; (d) is to use RFC5444 in the non-positional
 format method, and to use a Schema-base Compression/decompression either
 for the Reactive Protocol's messages, or for general messages, see below
 link

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg14827.html

 AB

-- 
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  Abdussalam Baryun
     Type:  enhancement                 |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                       |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  dymo                        |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document          |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  RFC5444, Address TLVs       |
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/17#comment:1>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:02:37 +0100

>   for the Reactive Protocol's messages, or for general messages, see below

I don't think putting my idea at this state into the Issue-Tracker is 
helpful.

Especially not with this title.

Henning Rogge

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:11:30 +0100

Please note that you mentioned that the Plan of the Schema [1] is for
all MANET protocols, so this reactive is one important,

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg14824.html

I don't think I misunderstood,

AB