Subject: [manet] Addition Comparing Questions (was Re: Resolving the Reactive Protocol issue)

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:36:06 +0100

Hi Sue,

I will try to answer the last two as I think it is addressed to WG
participants as well, see below;

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Susan Hares <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Additional questions:
>
> **1)  **Will you suggest a style guide as well as a solution?  In order
> to vote, I reviewed 2 months of email list discussion, and ****
>
> much of it had to do with document style issues. ****
>
> **2)  **In parallel with your query, can I still ask technical questions
> regarding people’s comparison answer? ****
>
> **3)      **May I in parallel provide reactive trade-off from 802.11 work
> in mesh? This includes research and deployment experience with mesh
> networks (2-15 nodes).
>

Yes, please provide with your opinion/experience as it will help in the new
reactive protocol that we will be working on,

> ****
>
> **4)  **Is this IP only or are we considering Reactive protocols directly
> over layer 2? ****
>

Yes, I am interested that it is only IP reactive protocol as the
MANET-charter is focused on, but one of the proposed protocol seem to be
working with or without IP which I believe out of scope. As mentioned by
someone before on the list that some MANETs do use reactive protocols in
L2. However, IMHO, considering reactive protocol directly over L2 can/may
be interested to us after completing the reactive over IP.

AB