Subject: Re: [manet] #23 (aodvv2): Format of processing algorithms

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:29:08 -0000

#23: Format of processing algorithms

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 On 4/3/2014 5:00 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
 > That method of describing conditions are not similar way followed in
 RFC3561. The below uses more lines in the draft, but not sure what is
 problem with the current method used.

 ============================================================================

 On 4/3/2014 11:13 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
 > On 04/04/2014 02:00 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
 >> That method of describing conditions are not similar way followed
 >> in RFC3561. The below uses more lines in the draft, but not sure what
 is
 >> problem with the current method used.
 >
 > Algorithmic descriptions as large text blocks (instead of bullet lists
 > with short statements) are more easy to interpret in different ways,
 > which opens the door for incompatible implementations.

 ============================================================================

 On 4/4/2014 4:39 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
 > I went through this discussion before on the IETF list and the answer
 was no, it is more better to use a simple text, and not use simple bullet
 points.

 ============================================================================

 On 4/7/2014 12:27 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
 > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76625.html
 > That reference may not get the same understanding I got. But I
 understood from that thread discussion and others the reason why
 specification drafts go better for sentence text than go for sequence
 points.

 ============================================================================

 On 4/11/2014 4:23 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

 > The point of the specification is to enable interoperable
 implementations,.
 > Some people prefer a short stepwise description of the algorithm, and
 some
 > people prefer to read (unambiguous) text describing each step in more
 > detail.  I don't see why the specification cannot satisfy both groups.
 > I will develop the formulation with short statements as requested.

 ============================================================================

 On 6/17/2014 5:51 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:

 > I am aware of that. My point is: while I appreciate your hard work to
 move
 > the spec to another level, unfortunately I don't understand the purpose
 of
 > your pseudocode efforts. The only explanation I was able to come up with
 > was that the pseudocode was a reaction to the remark by Thomas Heide
 Clausen
 > that you put into the issue tracker, in which case, I'd say I'd
 interpret
 > it differently...

-- 
-----------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                 |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                  |   Milestone:
Component:  aodvv2                 |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document     |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                         |
-----------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/23#comment:2>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>