Subject: Re: [babel] Summary of my comments about Denis' talk

From: Denis Ovsienko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 22:00:51 +0000

---- On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 05:09:15 +0000 Juliusz Chroboczek  wrote ---- 
>Concerning Denis' talk, I'm of the opinion that Appendix A should remain 
>an informative appendix. Further constraining neighbour discovery and 
>link-quality sensing should only be done as a last recourse, and after 
>serious thought. 
> 
>It is intended by the protocol that a neighbour only exists after it sent 
>a Hello. If that's not clear in the spec, it should be clarified, or else 
>a different policy defined. I'm not sure it matters much, though. 
> 
>The spec is very clear about Acks: after your receive an Ack Request, you 
>MUST send an Ack within the deadling. No other requirements are made -- 
>how to deal with missed Acks is an implementation issue. 

Hello Juliusz and all.

This was the first section of the talk, please find particular changes I propose to address most of it in this pull request: https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/pull/2

>I believe that there is consensus that Hellos should not be further 
>constrained (thanks, David). If the HMAC extension needs extra data, it 
>can put further constraints when HMAC is enabled -- for example, HMAC 
>could require the RTT extension (which is pretty cool, but requires 
>generating a timestamp for every Hello packet -- is that prohibitive?), or 
>it can put its own sub-TLV in Hello, or it can require that Hellos only be 
>sent in a packet that carries a TS TLV. (The RTT extension does something 
>similar -- it requires that IHUs be only sent in packets that carry a Hello.) 

This was the second, for which I don't yet have a solution more particular than the discussion made during the talk.

-- 
    Denis Ovsienko