headers
Abdussalam Baryun | 3 Jul 2012 20:14
Picon

Re: MANET Terminology Update

Hi Jiazi,

On 7/3/12, Jiazi YI <yi.jiazi <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. I didn't get the scope of this document. The definitions are from
> "Communication Medium" to protocol-specific term like "Route Reply Message
> (RREP)", and even security. I don't think it's necessary to go from the
> general terms of telecommunication to some specified protocols -- if you
> define RREP, why not HELLO, TC, and all other message types in the other
> protocols?

I will add  TC and HELLO, and others if they are a general concept to
be used by MANET. Usually the draft is the start, there will be more
work to be added,

>
> 2. A lot of definitions are quite vague and do not make much sense, for
> example:
>
>> "Upper layer"
>  this can be only used in certain context, but not a an depenent term.

ok we may remove it,

>
>>Reactive Routing:
>>An on-demand based routing protocol that operates route discover and
>>maintainance the route(s), to reach the demanded destination(s).
>
> what's an on-demand based routing procotol then? A reactive routing?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas Heide Clausen | 6 Jul 2012 07:50

Re: MANET Terminology Update

I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:

	o	The RFCs published by the WG all do a good job of defining their proper 
		terminology and conventions in the sections, aptly named to this 
		effect -- and something which both the WG and the IESG has been very 
		vigilant in ensuring.

	o	Extracting this terminology, to present without the context of the RFC in 
		which they are introduced and used, is both futile and a source 
		of errors and confusion.

	o	The domain evolves, new protocols appear and introduce new concepts, 
		terms. This is captured by carefully defining such in the RFC specifying 
		that protocol. Any terminology document (aside from all its other issues,
		indicated in this list) would likely be obsolete and incomplete before the
		ink with which it was written was dry.

	o	All RFCs in MANET uses no more than a small subset of the total MANET
		(and Internet) terminology. A collective terminology document would,
		therefore, necessarily be adding entropy to any single RFC and to the 
		WG (and to implementers of the WG protocols).

	o	Certainly, a large number of terms in this document are entirely out of scope
		(such as those pertaining to non-MANET developed concepts or protocols, 
		e.g., those developed in other parts of the IETF), are useless for the WG
		(such as, but not exclusively, "communication channel" and "communication 
		medium"), are by nature ambiguous (such as, but not exclusively, "Upper Layer"
		and "Node"), carry a legacy that renders them difficult to use (such as, but 
		not exclusively, "Logical (virtual) Link", "Physical Link", and "Link").
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Abdussalam Baryun | 6 Jul 2012 10:06
Picon

Re: MANET Terminology Update

Dear Thomas,

I thank you for your reply and comments,

Best Regards
Abdussalam
==========

On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas <at> thomasclausen.org> wrote:
> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:
>
> 	o	The RFCs published by the WG all do a good job of defining their proper
> 		terminology and conventions in the sections, aptly named to this
> 		effect -- and something which both the WG and the IESG has been very
> 		vigilant in ensuring.
>
> 	o	Extracting this terminology, to present without the context of the RFC in
>
> 		which they are introduced and used, is both futile and a source
> 		of errors and confusion.
>
> 	o	The domain evolves, new protocols appear and introduce new concepts,
> 		terms. This is captured by carefully defining such in the RFC specifying
> 		that protocol. Any terminology document (aside from all its other issues,
> 		indicated in this list) would likely be obsolete and incomplete before
> the
> 		ink with which it was written was dry.
>
> 	o	All RFCs in MANET uses no more than a small subset of the total MANET
> 		(and Internet) terminology. A collective terminology document would,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Abdussalam Baryun | 23 Jul 2012 08:58
Picon

Re: MANET Terminology Update

Hi

Comment inline below:

On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas <at> thomasclausen.org> wrote:
> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:
>
> 	o	The RFCs published by the WG all do a good job of defining their proper
> 		terminology and conventions in the sections, aptly named to this
> 		effect -- and something which both the WG and the IESG has been very
> 		vigilant in ensuring.

Agree

>
> 	o	Extracting this terminology, to present without the context of the RFC in
>
> 		which they are introduced and used, is both futile and a source
> 		of errors and confusion.

It is not extracting any thing it is locating information in easy
location to be reached efficiently by researchers, or other WG
participants. In another reason, for example the RFC5444 and RFC6130
is providing a MANET standard, while any RFC in this WG is specifying
its own terminology and message format, but the reason was to bring
RFCs to have similar formating functions. The terminology RFCs in many
WGs does the same. RFC2501 is doing a good job to bring understanding
of MANET which the terminology informational RFCs are doing in each
concept/group-charter.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Stan Ratliff (sratliff | 23 Jul 2012 16:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: MANET Terminology Update

I'm going to "+1" one (and only one) sentence in this email thread: 

> 
> On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas <at> thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:
> 

In my opinion as a working group participant, this is an unnecessary distraction for the working group, and
will not result in a meaningful document. I will not support it. 

Regards,
Stan

On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Comment inline below:
> 
> On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas <at> thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:
>> 
>> 	o	The RFCs published by the WG all do a good job of defining their proper
>> 		terminology and conventions in the sections, aptly named to this
>> 		effect -- and something which both the WG and the IESG has been very
>> 		vigilant in ensuring.
> 
> Agree
> 
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Joe Macker | 23 Jul 2012 17:40
Picon

Re: MANET Terminology Update

Additional +1 

I believe there is no need for this

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:59 AM, "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff <at> cisco.com> wrote:

> I'm going to "+1" one (and only one) sentence in this email thread: 
> 
>> 
>> On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas <at> thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>>> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:
>> 
> 
> In my opinion as a working group participant, this is an unnecessary distraction for the working group,
and will not result in a meaningful document. I will not support it. 
> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Comment inline below:
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Don Sturek | 23 Jul 2012 17:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: MANET Terminology Update

+1

Agreed.  I don't see any value in MANET to the proposed I-D.

Don

On 7/23/12 7:59 AM, "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff <at> cisco.com> wrote:

>I'm going to "+1" one (and only one) sentence in this email thread:
>
>> 
>> On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas <at> thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>>> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:
>> 
>
>In my opinion as a working group participant, this is an unnecessary
>distraction for the working group, and will not result in a meaningful
>document. I will not support it.
>
>Regards,
>Stan
>
>
>
>
>On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> 
>> Comment inline below:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ulrich Herberg | 23 Jul 2012 18:21

Re: MANET Terminology Update

+1

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff <at> cisco.com> wrote:
I'm going to "+1" one (and only one) sentence in this email thread:

>
> On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas <at> thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:
>

In my opinion as a working group participant, this is an unnecessary distraction for the working group, and will not result in a meaningful document. I will not support it.

Regards,
Stan


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bo Berry | 23 Jul 2012 19:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: MANET Terminology Update

+1

On Jul 23, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:

> +1
> 
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff <at> cisco.com> wrote:
> I'm going to "+1" one (and only one) sentence in this email thread:
> 
> >
> > On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas <at> thomasclausen.org> wrote:
> >> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:
> >
> 
> In my opinion as a working group participant, this is an unnecessary distraction for the working group,
and will not result in a meaningful document. I will not support it.
> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

----
boberry <at> cisco.com
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.
This email may contain information that is protected by NDA. Any unauthorized review, use, distribution
or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to
receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane