On 24.4.2015, at 23.25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 24/04/2015 19:51, Markus Stenberg wrote:
>> On 24.4.2015, at 7.46, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You can process TLVs invididually (the length is in second byte received),
or in small chunks. TLV processing definition has only one depend
On 24/04/2015 19:51, Markus Stenberg wrote:
> On 24.4.2015, at 7.46, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> You can process TLVs invididually (the length is in second byte received),
>>> or in small chunks. TLV processing definition has only one dependency on
>>> other TLVs (node data has to have respecti
On 24.4.2015, at 7.46, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> You can process TLVs invididually (the length is in second byte received),
>> or in small chunks. TLV processing definition has only one dependency on
>> other TLVs (node data has to have respective node state ’nearby’, for
>> undefined nearby)
Hi Markus,
On 23/04/2015 18:46, Markus Stenberg wrote:
> On 23.4.2015, at 2.37, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> 1. Changed DNCP "messages" into series of TLV streams, allowing optimized
>>> round-trip saving synchronization.
>>
>> So, I have a couple of questions about the new text:
>>
>> A DNCP
On 23.4.2015, at 2.37, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 1. Changed DNCP "messages" into series of TLV streams, allowing optimized
>> round-trip saving synchronization.
>
> So, I have a couple of questions about the new text:
>
> A DNCP message in and of itself is just an abstraction; when using
>
Hi,
> 1. Changed DNCP "messages" into series of TLV streams, allowing optimized
> round-trip saving synchronization.
So, I have a couple of questions about the new text:
A DNCP message in and of itself is just an abstraction; when using
reliable stream transport, the whole stream of TLVs
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Distributed Node Consensus Protocol
Authors : Markus Stenberg
Steven Bar
