search

Lotterleben / AODVv2-Draft

0 stars 0 forks source link

Local route Set: vague wording. #6

Closed Lotterleben closed 8 years ago

Lotterleben commented 8 years ago

[Jiazi]

Alternatively, implementations MAY choose to modify the Routing Information Base directly.

This should be either more precise (in which condition, how we can modify the RIB?), or be removed.

[Lotte]

Isn’t the how really implementation specific?

[Jiazi] My point is that, the sentence is content-free, and we MAY do anything we want to the RIB, which is not good.

Lotterleben commented 8 years ago

He has a point here, I'll make the wording more precise.

ratliffstan commented 8 years ago

Lotte,

Since you closed the issue, do I need to pull a copy of the doc from GitHub to see what changed?

My (minor) concern is the extent to which this goes from specification down into implementation. I know the line is subjective, but I worry that some of these issues actually force too much detail into the spec - to take it to the absurd (just for illustrative purposes), we'd wind up with the Linux system calls to modify the RIB... obviously don't want that, but where do we draw the line?

Regards, Stan

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Lotte Steenbrink <notifications@github.com

wrote:

He has a point here, I'll make the wording more precise.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Lotterleben/AODVv2-Draft/issues/6#issuecomment-219735449

Lotterleben commented 8 years ago

Hi Stan, no, you can visit https://github.com/Lotterleben/AODVv2-Draft/commit/fba2339b51e2efadbd3084a6616288bbeefb6ec8 to see what I changed. You can see the changes introduced by any commits that are (automatically) referenced in an issue by clicking on links that look like this: bildschirmfoto 2016-05-17 um 16 44 31

As for your concern, true, but we don't mandate anyone to build a system like that, do we? With Linux' RIB, you'd just update the RIB whenever a LocalRoute.State changes. (but I'd also be fine with removing that paragraph altogether)

charliep51 commented 8 years ago

Hello folks,

The proposed resolution and closing the issue is O.K. with me. I would be O.K. with removing all the verbiage about RIB versus FIB anyway, because it really is implementation specific and does not affect interoperability. Those terms were added at the request of Jiazi's crew in the first place, if I remember correctly. However, since we have added them, at this point maybe the best thing is simply to make the least modifications to respond to the recent comments.

Regards, Charlie P.

On 5/17/2016 7:48 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:

Hi Stan, no, you can visit fba2339 https://github.com/Lotterleben/AODVv2-Draft/commit/fba2339b51e2efadbd3084a6616288bbeefb6ec8 to see what I changed. You can see the changes introduced by any commits that are (automatically) referenced in an issue by clicking on links that look like this: bildschirmfoto 2016-05-17 um 16 44 31 https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/581552/15326613/eae55726-1c4e-11e6-9332-6a1729d8c8ba.png

As for your concern, true, but we don't mandate anyone to build a system like that, do we? With Linux' RIB, you'd just update the RIB whenever a LocalRoute.State changes. (but I'd also be fine with removing that paragraph altogether)

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Lotterleben/AODVv2-Draft/issues/6#issuecomment-219741556