Re: [manet-dlep-rg] London meet up?

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

I wonder if we could allow a MAC address data TLV in the multicast
discovery peer offer.

It would solve a lot of headaches with DLEP Wifi radios in Adhoc mode.

Henning

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Henning,
>
> That's true. The data items would be in the "Peer Offer" response to the
> Multicasted Discovery. Those data items (IP address and Port) will have to
> move to the discovery message. Also, any a-priori configuration will need to
> be implemented in the router instead of the modem, but that's really an
> "implementation detail".
>
> Regards,
> Stan
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>
>  wrote:
>
> I just looked it up, we have no data items in the UDP discovery broadcast at
> all at the moment.
>
> Henning
>
> On Mar 5, 2014 5:36 PM, "Rick Taylor" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Thank you all very much for a very productive meeting this afternoon.  I
>> include a write up of my notes, please correct me if I have missed anything
>> pertinent.
>>
>> Stan has committed to updating the session initiation description to place
>> the TCP server in the modem, so the initial part of the protocol is:  Modem
>> broadcasts UDP Hello packets containing version, ident and TCP address/port.
>> Router TCP connects, session initiation occurs via the new TCP connection.
>>
>> Credit windowing will stay in the document, but will be clearly marked as
>> an optional part of the protocol.  There was some concern raised over the
>> clarity of the current text which will need to be address before last call.
>>
>> Vendor extensions will be defined using a new Data Item, containing a OUI
>> (or something from an existing registry) and space for a payload.  There
>> will need to be some guidance verbiage to characterise what is a valid
>> vendor extension and what is not.
>>
>> There was clarification of what both ends of a DLEP session must do on
>> reciept of an unrecognized signal and data item.  For a data item, the
>> receiver MUST ignore the data item, for a signal the recipient MUST send an
>> error status signal and terminate the TCP connection.
>>
>> There will be no facility in DLEP v1 for vendor extended signals.  Any
>> extra signals will require an uplift of the verion of the protocol and
>> require a new draft.
>>
>> There will be no such thing as a Peer Characteristic Request.  This will
>> prevent abuse and misuse of the DLEP protocol to act as a configuration
>> mechanism.
>>
>> There was further discussion concerning multiple QoS flows with seperate
>> metrics across a single link.  This was agreed to be pushed out to another
>> draft after DLEP v1, after some analysis that the proposed approach
>> (heirachial data items) will not break existing DLEP v1 implementations.
>> Stan agreed to double check that the text specified 16bit length values for
>> all TLVs (data and signals).
>>
>> There was discussion about enumerating error codes, and potential error
>> text.  The status signal MUST include an error code, 0 being success, others
>> to be enumerated after close analysis of the protocol, plus and optional
>> free text field to carry loggable information, capped at 80 bytes, utf8
>> encoded.
>>
>> There was discussion of confidence values for metrics, and this was
>> rejected as a core DLEP mechanism, and the suggestion was to use an
>> extension data item TLV instead.
>>
>> In light of achieveing their goal of listing the outstanding points that
>> needed to be reolved before DLEP can make progress to WG last-call, and
>> actually achieving suitable consensus to resolve the outstanding issues to
>> the satisafaction of one of the authors present, the DT decided to not apply
>> for a continuation of their charter, and to instead announce "Mission
>> Complete"
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Rick Taylor
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
>
>