Subject: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-jitter-02

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:47:52 +0100

As part of the IESG review process for draft-ietf-manet-jitter-02,
comments from Ross Callon (supervising AD) and Adrian Farrel
suggest that in Section 5 where it is suggested that jitter
"MAY be employed" that this is strengthened to "SHOULD be employed".
(The possibility of it being "MUST be employed" was also considered.)
The authors of the document agree with this suggestion, but it is
also appropriate that the WG support this change, and any feedback
is welcome.

Christopher Dearlove

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

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:54:35 +0100

(Apologies, something went wrong with my CC-ing to both of the
other authors.)

Christopher Dearlove

---

From: "SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:49:05 +0900

> (The possibility of it being "MUST be employed" was also considered.)

I would like to confirm. We must use "jitter" in any MANET protocol?
I think "jitter" is one of the option for connectivity because of our
real test (not simulation).

Regards,
Hiroki

------------------------------------------------
  SATOH, Hiroki
  Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory
  E-Mail:[email-masked]
------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:35:42 +0100

No, you should use jitter unless you have a good reason not to,
but it isn't compulsory.

To quote RFC 2119

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

-----Original Message-----
From: SATOH, Hiroki (HitachiSDL) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 25 October 2007 23:49
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-jitter-02

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

Regards,
Hiroki