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

Jiazi Yi <> Mon, 11 February 2013 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E1121F87BB; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:47:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ftPn+mF6sc5Z; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:47:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CB021F87B9; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id hi8so3499835wib.13 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:47:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to :x-mailer; bh=LoKYms5qDmvFztiT55JAXcUYvWxu5AtpBJsOpdASfH8=; b=H0CSFsa9ZQjrKYonMjBPnb+oWGBiSsX9btaoUEDhGrnoK9df17cenhJHv/19C9TGpg Pd70ailDTlmnjrDATqfVXL0hG3R+CJvMzzPrfvZ+pTJnrOhM+XmbpxsarIMPdoJVOh5r Y10FJdhnMU1yyF/einTyalsTZ8Sc8tiR+ysgrOGB2SMBWmF6oxDXt9KJTBPhNujB8fM6 oY/oQ7IHMmhfYkY7160/O9XV8yHPatSghuUklCCJURjgYxYTW7fvH2JExGnB5z0p1QLY TSo25jVqUYogZkIduvpEh8K9XAT6uDo8tiHlgjYWJlAEbcsalWSTQvkxfiarqPopJvZ/ oaWg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xs7mr26003218wjb.41.1360608460810; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jy-mac-pro.home ( []) by with ESMTPS id bf2sm23751366wib.6.2013. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Jiazi YI <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF last call and review of draft-cardenas-dff-09.txt
From: Jiazi Yi <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:47:38 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Ralph Droms <>,, Ulrich Herberg <>, " List" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:47:43 -0000

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." 



On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Ralph Droms <> 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 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
> mailing lists by 2013-02-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to 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
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list