IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Resources TLV

"Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> Mon, 11 November 2013 17:33 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1410B21E809C for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:33:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dcc7QPzTU+vc for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:33:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8784711E8147 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:33:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1320; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384191205; x=1385400805; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=zGEtdV1ViQITocUAGB6Qn9a9Rngtb5AF/tD7jrRVxV8=; b=L+7/243X6coRcNPy3fj56t6Z+oQt5XWM4VET8/zO614Um/bjDzyRJV6y SiEy1lLi1jPcAL9uPpuZkXKgk8JhNW9WTtK7+QBcAbil4+X7QVOU5VoG8 6szHkar1pe+PexISaw7KhkS+7RGiUB0rufFINOn9b90GuMgExd1/MwXd7 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAK4TgVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U78XgT0WdIIlAQEBAwF5EAIBCEYyJQIEDgWHewa+Ro4YgRwzB4MggRADmA+SCoMmgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,679,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="94681467"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2013 17:33:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rABHXL59020733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:33:23 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.200]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:33:21 -0600
From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Thread-Topic: Resources TLV
Thread-Index: AQHO3vjPoyHjSCWKVkmOt5Wv7ZKM2pogrt6A
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:33:21 +0000
Message-ID: <DBDD85B3-D1B8-4BEA-8E78-40E0D5A9819C@cisco.com>
References: <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F307D9192F7@EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl> <CAK=bVC85XAXR3Zkwq+JwELF-dvgrKwbowWCvwvnjeVn7VStnbw@mail.gmail.com> <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F307D9193CD@EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB50268E6C@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <B2BA430A-F4E6-4DED-A7BB-7282A22802B7@inf-net.nl> <D02397F1-9D1B-4B36-81D0-4585ACDBA34A@gmail.com> <5D184300-2D97-4EC1-8D91-76D4A79B2BDA@inf-net.nl> <DDAE98C5-520E-4F8F-9F9B-2AB9A15A70EF@cisco.com> <7AE67C0F-C4D3-432A-BD4F-F16EA4F06657@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <7AE67C0F-C4D3-432A-BD4F-F16EA4F06657@inf-net.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.107]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <183E5987F8D16D48B8249B01AAEB7F7F@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "DLEP Research Group (manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Resources TLV
X-BeenThere: manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:33:39 -0000

Teco, 

I'm opposed to putting Resources in yet another draft. Yes, I understand that you have an implementation. My company has sold units, and has them in the field, interoperating with other company's products. Stripping the Resources TLV makes them non-compliant. IMHO, that's not an option. 

I'm not opposed to changing the text around the (now) optional Resources TLV, to make it more vague. I am opposed to removing it in its entirety. Hence, I detect that we are at deadlock. Other opinions, please?

Stan

On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
 wrote:

> 
> Op 11 nov. 2013, om 01:55 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@cisco.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> What I'm envisioning is *NOT* to "remove" the Resources TLV, but to make it OPTIONAL. Remember, I've got implementations in the field with Resources in it.So for me, it's backwards compatibility…
> 
> We all have some kind of implementation (so do I).
> 
> I prefer complementary DLEP documents. It defines the optional TLV, purpose etc. This helps us get out the core document quickly. 
> 
> On a DLEP Resources RFC, I suggest not to mention battery level. Nor amount left in prepaid bundle. Such are very useful and deserve their own TLV.
> 
> Teco

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email