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

["Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[e-mail]>]

What would that MAC address be used for? I don't understand.

Stan

On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Henning Rogge <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>>