Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-08

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 24 November 2015 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F5E1A8FD2 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:32:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CjNqhPangco3 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80C21A8F3B for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:32:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.116]) by resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id lUYA1r0052XD5SV01UYrER; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:32:51 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([73.218.51.154]) by resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id lUYq1r0043KdFy101UYqCL; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:32:51 +0000
To: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric.all@ietf.org
References: <564F858B.4000105@alum.mit.edu> <56546333.6000004@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <56547B7B.8030206@alum.mit.edu> <56547DB1.3010403@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <56549131.6050202@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:32:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56547DB1.3010403@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1448382771; bh=4rVG8KDZHmzj0q9kOkuaU0A3/yvkT+M53FaYwXRA6qo=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=d1IU4SShJ1lgOvCPubQlPwIdb7riE+SoBDcjkiacc1Ho9HQAv5GwEGmHCBQq5dRAm 4PRC7WK8UY5rUxHTrvv38ibBQjMN8wWw4A+LZrDPE91w1xVB9Xen0N/2vn0b7WNZsu xMEMFqEqe9cUAQWVm6KRMNDgr+hf5/Al1obPNXB0bkHyueFyqnNsdYXGRJ7nywmurO Y0QLFd2VVhMcMcx55MWvJ5jTDs+Pf1j9QNjFapdx1i6yIfI1qFPq27NQ0tX2OgZOMA O82EmSyMLmNZAtCIBZaXzHRtXI+1SY9e9P2kMff8Y1I1gh2Vo1aOm7WuWDCeMLWE0l WH70VrJkSKxdQ==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/THXiH6XWguzuPvUk1p_PfKHChh8>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:32:53 -0000

Henning,

On 11/24/15 10:09 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 16:00 schrieb Paul Kyzivat:
>> So you are saying they are mutually exclusive: HELLO message by 9.4, all
>> other packets by 9.3. Can you make the text clearer about this. As
>> written it still could be interpreted as applying 9.3 to all packets,
>> including HELLO, and then applying 9.4 to HELLO packets. (Even though
>> this is nonsense if you think about it.)
>
> No, it is NOT exclusive...
>
> there is no Hello packet... there are just RFC5444 packets which might
> contain one (or in theory multiple) NHDP HELLO messages.
>
> Its the same with IP and UDP... every UDP header is contained in an IP
> header. We are talking about two different levels of hierarchy.
>
> DAT is processing both the RFC5444 packet header (which contains the
> packet sequence number) of ALL RFC5444 packets and the message content
> of the HELLO messages.

OK. But my confusion remains, because there seem to be duplicate actions 
in both 9.3 and 9.4 that ought not be done twice. In particular:

9.3:
    1.  If L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno = UNDEFINED, then:

        1.  L_DAT_received[TAIL] := 1.

        2.  L_DAT_total[TAIL] := 1.

9.4:
    3.  If L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno = UNDEFINED, then:

        1.  L_DAT_received[TAIL] := L_DAT_received[TAIL] + 1.

        2.  L_DAT_total[TAIL] := L_DAT_total[TAIL] + 1.

So, if I do 9.3 for every packet, and then also do 9.4 for every HELLO 
message within that packet, then I could end up incrementing 
L_DAT_received[TAIL] *twice*.

	Thanks,
	Paul