Subject: RE: [Manet-dt] Re: [manet] Re: PacketBB

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:17:03 +0100

From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>I agree PacketBB could be simpler, but I think it would be at the
>expense of more bits & less flexibility.

We have people pulling, as their priority, in four directions:
- Fewer bits.
- Simpler.
- Most flexible.
- Issued now.

We've attempted to make engineering compromises between the
first three of these, and now to satisfy the fourth by going
to last call. We've incorporated various specific suggestions,
possibly modified, along these lines throughout the process.
(Optional packet headers and message header options being just
the first examples that spring to mind.) As Ian has also said,
if there are specific suggestions how to improve on any of
these without significant impact on the others, that's what
this process is here for. But so far I haven't.

********************************************************************
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