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

Henning Rogge <> Wed, 05 March 2014 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFA81A0240 for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:22:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dlq3hJ8NHMuf for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::229]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC3F1A0224 for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j5so1550625qaq.14 for <>; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:22:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=GT9U4KEBIBaVkpKIh5zoKsn6/UDGlXieuSzs3cdDcqE=; b=r4bNtl7WSiEnuDTa6m1xUKNxpaxD60dlq5v+QAgJzwPzyiGAFj+6ooK8VYEgHJ0ILA ns3WZQo3qb2D9mGBz8N56bf8UnkeLKwt7v4JM3jC8/heiqMUvar3GOmdBROPyWfY+FaD W3kI8MtpG0ELvJoz/3W1Yb9w6FwEnEBrNqm9UXh1jh1ekBgktMNrsauWzgsuyKzhnuUF pQmshn/XhQC/PW2YhltksReMUXoSsYzBTE0yw1D6nQjHyHLktXYwtBeVzDbZ2/ryrbnV FGQoSO1AC9fUuu1vYZlrVUCrh5udONXeyFf0GNQ/P+2JON2MpDnm25hWb26+VV3Heg02 2h6A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b79mr4514822qge.108.1394050924350; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:22:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:21:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Henning Rogge <>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:21:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "DLEP Research Group, \(\)" <>, Rick Taylor <>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] London meet up?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DLEP Radio Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:22:11 -0000

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.


On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
<> 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 <>
>  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" <>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> manet-dlep-rg mailing list