Subject: [manet] #2: Terminology for reactive protocol document

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:42:19 -0000

#2: Terminology for reactive protocol document

 Several people have commented that the DYMO/AODVv2 specification is hard
 to understand.  Part of the problem is that the terminology is not always
 consistent with the terminology used in other documents (e.g., OLSRv2).
 Also, some of the language used in the document is not very natural.
 Finally, important datasets within the reactive protocol document should
 be identified and used consistently within the specification.  As one
 example, the fields of a Route Table Entry are already listed in section
 4.1.  Other such datasets should be identified and made more precise (for
 instance, as may be needed for blacklisted neighbors).  Another possible
 source of confusion is that some terms (e.g., OrigNode) might be thought
 to mean different things in different parts of the document.

 The proposal is to use terminology from OLSRv2 where appropriate, and to
 change the names of other important concepts within the reactive protocol
 wherever they may be unclear, and to attempt to use terms that mean the
 same thing throughout the document.

-- 
--------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  charliep@…          |      Owner:  Charlie Perkins
     Type:  enhancement         |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major               |  Milestone:
Component:  dymo                |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document  |   Keywords:  terminology clarity
--------------------------------+---------------------------------

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