|
»
« Return to Thread: DSRv2 the first effort idea of Reactive using NHDP
DSRv2 the first effort idea of Reactive using NHDP
by Abdussalam Baryun
::
Rate this Message:
Please note that I am working on DSRv2 which will submit to MANET WG.
My idea of NHDP used in a reactive protocol was not worked on yet, the
DSRv2 was the first to announce this use of NHDP with reactive.
Furthermore, I don't think there is restrictions on submitting I-Ds
to MANET WG, please read the charter and give me an excluding
statement. If yes there is this issue as you refer, I recommend only
the Chair or AD to educate me on stop the work I already am doing for
weeks. I think when I submit WG then can discuss further,
AB
=======
On 7/6/12, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@...> wrote:
> How can you know there is a need for DSRv2? It's not in the WG charter, and
> I've not seen anyone else on the list support the idea.
>
> --
> 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
> chris.dearlove@... | 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: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@...]
> Sent: 06 July 2012 13:13
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Cc: ulrich@...; manet
> Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP-MIB: ifType
>
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> This message originates from outside our organisation,
> either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> the point for me is not an individual understanding of the charter, MY
> effort is aimed to the community needs. So I RECOMMEND that any
> IETF-WG respects the community or even IETF-participant needs. I
> respect the WG charter and I am participating, so I hope the WG
> comments on my work. I know there is a need in DSRv2 and the future
> will prove my point, I will remind you of this in the future don't
> worry,
>
> AB
> =========
> On 7/6/12, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@...>
> wrote:
>> I'll also note that the WG doesn't need DSRv2, even if you have
>> permission
>> from the original authors to use their work (which I see no sign of). The
>> WG
>> is charted to produce one reactive protocol. Multiplicity of protocols is
>> a
>> bad, not a good, thing, unless there is a pressing reason for it. In the
>> reactive space the WG's adopted solution has been DYMO. Now that having
>> stalled - though it may now be out of that stall - may (no stronger than
>> that) open up the possibility that another protocol already developed to
>> a
>> similar maturity could be considered. LOADng claims to be that, I haven't
>> examined that claim. But a new protocol is clearly not that.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> chris.dearlove@... | 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-bounces@... [mailto:manet-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
>> Abdussalam Baryun
>> Sent: 06 July 2012 06:34
>> To: ulrich@...
>> Cc: manet
>> Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP-MIB: ifType
>>
>> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
>> This message originates from outside our organisation,
>> either from an external partner or from the internet.
>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
>> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I need the NHDP as a MANET interface for the DSRv2, which I suggested
>> for DSRv2 before, so I like/agree that you consider the flag ifType,
>> thanks very much,
>>
>> It is interesting if most manet routings use NHDP or even be possible
>> to use in future, because I think it is a MANET interface as specified
>> in OLSRv2.
>>
>> AB
>> ++++++++
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we are currently working on a revised ID of the NHDP-MIB, as follow-up
>>> on requests during the IESG review. Amongst others, one request from
>>> Thomas Nadeau may affect other MIB documents as well, which is why I
>>> post it on the mailing list.
>>>
>>> The current interface table in the NHDP-MIB is a copy of the interface
>>> MIB, with potentially many entries that are not MANET interfaces (but
>>> still waste space). What we are really interested in is monitoring and
>>> managing NHDP interfaces. Thomas Nadeau suggested to ask IANA to
>>> specify a ifType=MANET (as allowed by RFC2863 and the IANAifType
>>> registry), and to list only those in the NHDP-MIB. Bob and I propose
>>> that IANA allocates such an ifType, which covers all MANET WG
>>> protocols, i.e. ifType=MANET would be used for interfaces running
>>> NHDP, OLSRv2, SMF, DYMO, etc. In the NhdpIfTable, there is an
>>> additional boolean flag which determines whether the interface uses
>>> NHDP or not (i.e., if a router runs both DYMO and NHDP, the DYMO-only
>>> interfaces would be listed in the nhdpIfTable, but the boolean flag is
>>> false).
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Ulrich
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@...
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> 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.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
My idea of NHDP used in a reactive protocol was not worked on yet, the
DSRv2 was the first to announce this use of NHDP with reactive.
Furthermore, I don't think there is restrictions on submitting I-Ds
to MANET WG, please read the charter and give me an excluding
statement. If yes there is this issue as you refer, I recommend only
the Chair or AD to educate me on stop the work I already am doing for
weeks. I think when I submit WG then can discuss further,
AB
=======
On 7/6/12, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@...> wrote:
> How can you know there is a need for DSRv2? It's not in the WG charter, and
> I've not seen anyone else on the list support the idea.
>
> --
> 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
> chris.dearlove@... | 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: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@...]
> Sent: 06 July 2012 13:13
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Cc: ulrich@...; manet
> Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP-MIB: ifType
>
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> This message originates from outside our organisation,
> either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> the point for me is not an individual understanding of the charter, MY
> effort is aimed to the community needs. So I RECOMMEND that any
> IETF-WG respects the community or even IETF-participant needs. I
> respect the WG charter and I am participating, so I hope the WG
> comments on my work. I know there is a need in DSRv2 and the future
> will prove my point, I will remind you of this in the future don't
> worry,
>
> AB
> =========
> On 7/6/12, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@...>
> wrote:
>> I'll also note that the WG doesn't need DSRv2, even if you have
>> permission
>> from the original authors to use their work (which I see no sign of). The
>> WG
>> is charted to produce one reactive protocol. Multiplicity of protocols is
>> a
>> bad, not a good, thing, unless there is a pressing reason for it. In the
>> reactive space the WG's adopted solution has been DYMO. Now that having
>> stalled - though it may now be out of that stall - may (no stronger than
>> that) open up the possibility that another protocol already developed to
>> a
>> similar maturity could be considered. LOADng claims to be that, I haven't
>> examined that claim. But a new protocol is clearly not that.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> chris.dearlove@... | 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-bounces@... [mailto:manet-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
>> Abdussalam Baryun
>> Sent: 06 July 2012 06:34
>> To: ulrich@...
>> Cc: manet
>> Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP-MIB: ifType
>>
>> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
>> This message originates from outside our organisation,
>> either from an external partner or from the internet.
>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
>> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I need the NHDP as a MANET interface for the DSRv2, which I suggested
>> for DSRv2 before, so I like/agree that you consider the flag ifType,
>> thanks very much,
>>
>> It is interesting if most manet routings use NHDP or even be possible
>> to use in future, because I think it is a MANET interface as specified
>> in OLSRv2.
>>
>> AB
>> ++++++++
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we are currently working on a revised ID of the NHDP-MIB, as follow-up
>>> on requests during the IESG review. Amongst others, one request from
>>> Thomas Nadeau may affect other MIB documents as well, which is why I
>>> post it on the mailing list.
>>>
>>> The current interface table in the NHDP-MIB is a copy of the interface
>>> MIB, with potentially many entries that are not MANET interfaces (but
>>> still waste space). What we are really interested in is monitoring and
>>> managing NHDP interfaces. Thomas Nadeau suggested to ask IANA to
>>> specify a ifType=MANET (as allowed by RFC2863 and the IANAifType
>>> registry), and to list only those in the NHDP-MIB. Bob and I propose
>>> that IANA allocates such an ifType, which covers all MANET WG
>>> protocols, i.e. ifType=MANET would be used for interfaces running
>>> NHDP, OLSRv2, SMF, DYMO, etc. In the NhdpIfTable, there is an
>>> additional boolean flag which determines whether the interface uses
>>> NHDP or not (i.e., if a router runs both DYMO and NHDP, the DYMO-only
>>> interfaces would be listed in the nhdpIfTable, but the boolean flag is
>>> false).
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Ulrich
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@...
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> 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.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>
>
manet mailing list
manet@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
« Return to Thread: DSRv2 the first effort idea of Reactive using NHDP
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
