Subject: RE: [Manet-dt] Generalised OLSR packet/message format comments - msg-semantics

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:28:00 +0000

> One last comment. I would like to see several of the msg-semantic bits
> reserved for msg-type specific bits. 4 ideally, but I would probably
> settle for 2. For example in DYMO, RREQ messages could use a few of
> these bits for its own purpose.

I think this is exactly contrary to the common format philosophy
(see my last message) and is not a good idea. If an RREQ needs
RREQ specific information, the place for that is a message TLV.

********************************************************************
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-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

---

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:11:30 -0800

My opinion is that several msg-types might have benefit from using a
few bits in the fixed portion for their specific use. I don't think
this goes against the common format philosophy. Perhaps, the
msg-semantics could be broken into 4 bits for msg-semantics and 4 bits
for msg-type-specific bits.

I am just proposing the idea. Would any of the OLSRv2 packets benefit
from having a few bits specific and available to it?

Ian