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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 25 November 2015 15:11 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 491661B2E07 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:11:44 -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 0mawNQ6kE62H for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:11:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5EEB1B2DF5 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.228]) by resqmta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id lrB71r0014vw8ds01rBftk; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:11:39 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([73.218.51.154]) by resomta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id lrBd1r00D3KdFy101rBdBU; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:11:39 +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> <56549131.6050202@alum.mit.edu> <56555DBF.1070808@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <5655CFA8.5020909@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:11:36 -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: <56555DBF.1070808@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=1448464299; bh=dXrCR7KAZDtszne9GY0CFX7eEoekTD8CCPXxNgZHuUA=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=gtdu0oTf6RPuUJbiZqXEHQEAPiaDd1y0XnX9ScljHgFCXRl5D2LJY07lVGT9nWq6t FhmLIkzEQo3yAjFduuQW2JD+a9kV7PVFzRHXmn1ZAb7FLNIk//KbYtl4VdxIbMNMT4 ysEtX1+Cs5CFVx7KHK/NLOM1EYPKIT6Hoyxoiertj0zZ6MNFGIOAIQmYF7BzFoxvWo Jb8aea0CEn/cCSP8DFqqE71VgRpisZCYb5r+9yHNSnt1jrRY4PANJpZnBQFmiwSuKB k2KUWRNCjvoC/3EiUFykQdjxIVy1uZ5GlyeJiuJIV61kVaJsImEWmbSdSvTZXfLTke uPBog2+TRPHSQ==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cVOtxT78IL3WIBrwiU5lqn9tKE8>
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: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:11:44 -0000

Henning,

I'm not trying to second guess the intent. My issues are solely with the 
presentation. And clearly this is not a subject I'm knowledgeable about, 
so I'm going solely from what I read in this draft without any other 
context. Somebody who has the proper context to be reading this may well 
not find it at all confusing. Nevertheless, see inline.

On 11/25/15 2:05 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 17:32 schrieb Paul Kyzivat:

>> 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*.

> If you look at the head of section 9.3 you will notice that this section
> will only be processed in the presence of a packet sequence number. One
> of the first things 9.3 does is to set the L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno variable.

OK. My mistake. Because 9.3 sets L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno it won't get 
updated again in 9.4.

But then, what is the purpose step 3 of 9.4? If 9.3 is always applied 
before 9.4, then L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno can never be undefined in 9.4.

	Thanks,
	Paul