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

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <sratliff@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405821A06B2 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:59:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kNdlXqta32kA for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:59:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3CA1A0326 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:59:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4718; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394053162; x=1395262762; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Svd/Lm5f6vckoAy1iyUMDKMjcYjdn2pVK6anhxQU3cA=; b=L4E9WThUVQNgUXnHE/HAv4Gjwtw0GAuDaEpw5bYiC6ycxX4cK/+9g0H5 LgUChw/fQd0jF+FP40BVOFzcpTrv0gqOuJjum6Yq/TRZ2xdM07MxEXlrf HCU8KF3lfhM3fdrfktRR9uap/yipBSND6q+yvWmyvD+CSY6vyCPJnTYy7 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FANePF1OtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8ENgRoWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIDgouIQYLJQIEDgWHZQMJCA3IBQ2GUBMEjDyBQSEzB4MkgRQEiRONPYFtjGOFSIMtgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,595,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="25195785"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2014 20:59:21 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s25KxLOX012800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:59:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.172]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:59:21 -0600
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [manet-dlep-rg] London meet up?
Thread-Index: AQHPNs8E5rMtCHw0g0CYI/Qmazemk5rPXBYAgAAtoeCAAzYSuYAAdfaAgAAZTQCAAAj4AIAACoCA
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:59:20 +0000
Message-ID: <67373A27-5AB2-47D3-B543-C0EB72D0AD7C@cisco.com>
References: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C34C0@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <480A632F-CB9E-4A62-ACDA-521C1A899049@inf-net.nl> <CAGnRvuqL8z+P5BJP-duyQo2BnTSpnkv7nDnOEdAQ1RfdXu7r+Q@mail.gmail.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C4B60@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F98FA6C56BA@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CAGnRvuotok8UC-=i9RU8RvAv_wcv1DE3ubRLqibWeDLF6KRuDA@mail.gmail.com> <FB821471-E223-41BE-8D38-24C54B2B92C5@cisco.com> <CAGnRvupAoaLtvsHh6TLXvxsBnmrLMtPCZ-VKuxR=gVPxnchWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnRvupAoaLtvsHh6TLXvxsBnmrLMtPCZ-VKuxR=gVPxnchWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.231.108]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <F50B798B15C12C48821598886E2012BB@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet-dlep-rg/K3KeLHF08NZ5PflSldOjYexb8AY
Cc: "DLEP Research Group, \(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] London meet up?
X-BeenThere: manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DLEP Radio Group <manet-dlep-rg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet-dlep-rg>, <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet-dlep-rg/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg>, <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:59:27 -0000

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

Stan

On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> 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)
> <sratliff@cisco.com> 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 <hrogge@gmail.com>
>> 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" <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
>> 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@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
>> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
>> 
>>