Subject: [manet] #21 (aodvv2): Document hard to read

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 20:59:13 -0000

#21: Document hard to read

 (Thomas Clausen) I found the document rather hard to read, in part due to
 the terminology used.  The Terminology section states that it uses "some
 terminology from [RFC5444]", but is not explicit as to what.  RFC5444
 defines terms such as packet/message, both of which are used in this
 document in (I think) manners inconsistent with their definitions in
 RFC5444. I'll point out a couple of examples of this in the below, but the
 terminology use should be cleaned up through the document to be consistent
 with RFC5444. I think that as RFC5444 and this document are both products
 of the MANET wg, and that this document uses RFC5444, then the terminology
 should be perfectly aligned with the terminology from RFC5444 (I have not
 seen overruling reasons otherwise in the document).  While we are on the
 terminology, "packet" appears to be used both to describe (i) a RFC5444
 packet, (ii) a protocol data unit for this protocol, and (iii) an IP
 datagram.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-manet-
  [email-masked]  |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  aodvv2       |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG    |   Keywords:
  Document               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/21>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 00:46:54 +0100

I agree that that terminology can add aodvv2 packet definition but not
needed.  The draft to use IP packet and aodvv2 packet if needed. My
understanding is that all packets in the draft are RFC5444 packets or
aodvv2 packets, and only if said IP packet. I think this was the method
done in olsrv2 draft too.

AB

On Thursday, April 3, 2014, manet issue tracker wrote:

>   [email-masked] <javascript:;>  |  [email-masked]<javascript:;>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked] <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:57:47 +0200

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> understanding is that all packets in the draft are RFC5444 packets or aodvv2
> packets, and only if said IP packet. I think this was the method done in
> olsrv2 draft too.

If you take the protocol multiplexing capabilities of RFC5444 serious
there is no such thing as a "AODVv2 packet"... there are "AODVv2
messages" and "RFC5444 packets", which may contain messages from
multiple protocols (e.g. AODVv2 and NHDP messages in the same packet).

Henning Rogge

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:10:57 +0100

On Friday, April 4, 2014, Henning Rogge wrote:

> <[email-masked] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> aodvv2
> there is no such thing as a "AODVv2 packet"...

The RFC5444 as I understood when I read it before that it was not
mentioning the way it was implemented or way of filling its formats. There
was a discussion in one WG meeting  between Teco and Thomas before
submitting packetbb draft, mentioning the missing issue, which the WG chair
mentioned that some one should volunteer to do that work. So IMO there may
be no thing agreed on in the WG about the general RFC5444 packet
multiplexing.

 there are "AODVv2
> multiple protocols (e.g. AODVv2 and NHDP messages in the same packet).

So I understand you suggest only one packet for all protocols and not
having AODVv2 packet.

AB

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:53:00 +0200

I think that what Henning describes is fairly well understood in the WG. I
have never heard anyone else having an issue with it. As Henning said
correctly, there are no AODVv2 packets, only RFC5444 packets that may
contain AODVv2 (and other) messages.

Ulrich

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> [email-masked]

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 10:07:45 +0200

There is also Appendix A of RFC5444 that explains the multiplexing part.

Henning

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Abdussalam Baryun

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:46:44 +0000

And RFC 5498 mandates its use on the manet port/protocol. So it is a must get right.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: manet [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henning Rogge
Sent: 04 April 2014 09:08
To: Ulrich Herberg
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] #21 (aodvv2): Document hard to read

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

Henning

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think that what Henning describes is fairly well understood in the 
> WG. I have never heard anyone else having an issue with it. As Henning 
> said correctly, there are no AODVv2 packets, only RFC5444 packets that 
> may contain AODVv2 (and other) messages.
>
> Ulrich
>
>
>>> > I agree that that terminology can add aodvv2 packet definition but 
>>> > not needed.  The draft to use IP packet and aodvv2 packet if 
>>> > needed. My understanding is that all packets in the draft are 
>>> > RFC5444 packets or
>>> > aodvv2
>>> If you take the protocol multiplexing capabilities of RFC5444 
>>> serious there is no such thing as a "AODVv2 packet"...
>>
>>
>> mentioning the way it was implemented or way of filling its formats. 
>> There was a discussion in one WG meeting  between Teco and Thomas 
>> before submitting packetbb draft, mentioning the missing issue, which 
>> the WG chair mentioned that some one should volunteer to do that 
>> work. So IMO there may be no thing agreed on in the WG about the 
>> general RFC5444 packet multiplexing.
>>
>>>  there are "AODVv2

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 21:10:58 +0100

In RFC5444 it mentions that each protocol defines its format. The RFC5444
is a general format for packets and messages.

AB

On Friday, April 4, 2014, Ulrich Herberg wrote:

> [email-masked]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> [email-masked] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:40:13 -0700

Hello Henning and all,

I will adjust the text to use "AODVv2 message" instead of "AODVv2 packet"
whenever feasible, or use some other wording if "message" does not fit.

Regards,
Charlie P.

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.