Re: [manet] IETF last call and review of draft-cardenas-dff-09.txt

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ulrich,

I agree with Jiazi, that you need to provide values of parameters for
the experiment I-D, or some default recommendations. I think it is
important but your text proposed does not follow the request of
parameters values,

AB

On 2/11/13, Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Jiazi,
>
> thank you very much for your review. I am glad that the latest
> revision addresses your previous concerns.
>
> As to your suggestion, I agree that having some constraints is useful.
> To your suggestion considering the number of routers in the DFF
> domain, I think this would be difficult to use normative language, as
> the number of routers may not be known (e.g. when not using a
> proactive routing protocol). DFF does not mandate to have this
> information at hand.
> Another example of setting the value would be to depend on the
> expected path length (e.g. based on information from the routing
> protocol). It may, e.g., be reasonable to set a MAX_HOP_LIMIT that is,
> say, 50% longer than the distance in hops indicated by a routing
> protocol. I think that it would be very interesting to find out
> appropriate values as experiments for the protocol (given that the
> document is Experimental).
>
> How about adding the following text to MAX_HOP_LIMIT:
>
> ----- added text ------
> Finding optimal values for MAX_HOP_LIMIT is part of experiments that
> can be performed with the protocol proposed in this document.
> For example, one possible experiment would be to set MAX_HOP_LIMIT to
> different factors of the expected path length to the destination in
> number of hops if provided by a routing protocol.
> ---------------------
>
>
>
> Best regards
> Ulrich
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jiazi Yi <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I had a through review of dff-07 with detailed comments. In the new
>> revision, my questions and concerns have been properly addressed -- thanks
>> to all the authors.
>>
>> The mechanism is well documented, and I have tested the protocol in the
>> scenarios described in the applicability statement, which brings
>> interesting performance improvement.
>>
>> Therefore, I would like to encourage the publication of it.
>>
>> Just one more comment:
>>
>>         o In section 8 Protocol Parameters, it would be better to have
>> some limitations or recommendations for those parameters. For P_HOLD_TIME,
>> I think it's OK by saying "at least be MAX_HOP_LIMIT times  the expected
>> time to send a Packet to a router on the same link.". It would be event
>> better to give such limitations to MAX_HOP_LIMIT. A regular value related
>> to NET_DIAMETER won't work, because DFF can have significant higher hop
>> count and result in packet drop. Maybe we can have something like "it MUST
>> NOT be higher than the number of routers in the DFF routing domain. If the
>> number of routers is greater than 255, it is set to 255 by default."
>>
>> best
>>
>> Jiazi
>>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> > draft-cardenas-dff is under consideration for publication as an
>> > AD-sponsored individual submission Experimental RFC.  I agreed to
>> > sponsor it for publication because it doesn't really fit in any existing
>> > working groups and the requested publication status is Experimental.  As
>> > part of the review process, the document is in a 2-week IETF last call.
>> > The last call announcement is included below.  To ensure the quality of
>> > the document, it would be helpful to get reviews from manet WG
>> > participants (posted to the [e-mail] discussion list).
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > - Ralph
>> >
>> >
>> > =====
>> >
>> >
>> > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
>> > consider
>> > the following document:
>> > - 'Depth-First Forwarding in Unreliable Networks (DFF)'
>> > <draft-cardenas-dff-09.txt> as Experimental RFC
>> >
>> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2013-02-24. Exceptionally, comments may
>> > be
>> > sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>> >
>> > Abstract
>> >
>> >
>> >  This document specifies the "Depth-First Forwarding" (DFF) protocol
>> >  for IPv6 networks, a data forwarding mechanism that can increase
>> >  reliability of data delivery in networks with dynamic topology and/or
>> >  lossy links.  The protocol operates entirely on the forwarding plane,
>> >  but may interact with the routing plane.  DFF forwards data packets
>> >  using a mechanism similar to a "depth-first search" for the
>> >  destination of a packet.  The routing plane may be informed of
>> >  failures to deliver a packet or loops.  This document specifies the
>> >  DFF mechanism both for IPv6 networks (as specified in RFC2460) and in
>> >  addition also for LoWPAN "mesh-under" networks (as specified in
>> >  RFC4944).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The file can be obtained via
>> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/
>> >
>> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ballot/
>> >
>> >
>> > The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
>> >
>> >  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1645/
>> >  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1646/
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > manet mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>