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

Henning Rogge <> Wed, 05 March 2014 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0EF1A013A for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:19:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LNx3dTl5eFfH for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3BB1A01DE for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id cm18so544371qab.8 for <>; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:19:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6W40eAgBHQyzWdh5FiJpC4HJM1orxx1SuFznBmCz70M=; b=kTTqTkDJAjO1M5B8iOZwd94iOJ2xAsfnfneoYMEJLMJKXHIP6Z8kBhAS43zhloHY3M MtLX7MkzxVSpyggFxA/afQky4I1cqelNBj5qGCY5VkxzsQYBdhs3hVtm2aN0eOyMGo3Z cDYgYDh+2iQtPQld2rIOy1+GhdXOeyHT+L+DVM5xYDdy2UUahkLfw4bifVWOLMM34O5u wFuDf8vi6+fM1TqB2rpLgCI3ILRhOUdUzLxeUDMrisIuwD29W68k/BnIfa7z5V2i/oRb Kc58Xiv4isU54Yph+IYYHBUPx2DoKw3PsnCmiV5BtBgnFJd8JvJVxqBeW8miRuy6uYek 2SUg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id o7mr7963847qah.38.1394043546276; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:19:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:19:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:19:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
From: Henning Rogge <>
To: Rick Taylor <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3ed3e6c4af204f3e00eee
Cc: "DLEP Research Group, \(\)" <>
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 18:19:18 -0000

I just looked it up, we have no data items in the UDP discovery broadcast
at all at the moment.

On Mar 5, 2014 5:36 PM, "Rick Taylor" <>

> 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