Subject: Re: [manet] #6: sequence number incrementation mandate

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:59:30 -0700

Hello folks,

The stronger mandate has been specified in recent revisions of the document.
Doing so has, as expected, simplified numerous parts of the overall 
specification,
and no objections have been expressed for this proposed resolution of the
issue.

For this reason, I believe it is reasonable to close the issue, unless 
there are
use cases suggested to the mailing list for reducing the strength of the
mandate back to its previous status of "SHOULD".

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 11/4/2012 9:07 PM, manet issue tracker wrote:
> #6: sequence number incrementation mandate
>
>   Previous versions of DYMO *strongly recommend* incrementation of
>   !OwnSeqNum upon generation of every new RREQ or RREP message, but do not
>   impose a strict mandate.  This leads to some uncertainty about whether
>   there are cases when the incrementation should not be performed.
>   Demonstrations have been made in the past about the differences, but it is
>   not clear that these differences have caused any performance degradation.
>
>   For the purposes of making the current document more readable, and since
>   there seems to be little downside, it is proposed to change "SHOULD"
>   increment to "MUST" increment in all relevant cases, including RREQ
>   retries.
>   If future studies illustrate the circumstances under which sequence number
>   incrementation may be avoided, description of those circumstances should
>   be added to the document and the specification changed in those
>   circumstances.
>

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.