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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Thu, 06 March 2014 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 BA4A61A0189 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:38:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 I0V8M9lJVvTT for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35241A0190 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:38:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m15so350654wgh.3 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:38:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=BFBUIMBWfUNjwMcUaQb+GdeLgLrp9zKAWHSTi4jXuDk=; b=L2XQhFKPhRY3+pOd2KBkTMrKhZrh057pK7K4vGEB27jUZAfoC9ep9x79q9pmkwL9gv yzeEbsugY30KXj0Kf2bIaqDt7/juyIgx289CQnKJFgyQZfrUoJ48Yy7YJdbpQ17u9CGO mZEgkpycMdkcldN2vWBBmyNtePWLrety2xBs7cU/6DzqBBJ+b9LgOBICpjqeALnizjxy nhFa8iwbtpM4i3+okmEJpMwmVAfdZ3ZiC9BTZ/yf57S+ClSjTCg8i+2UGQ3DpaHnkGpz scqZTgj3KFI5OlXe+cDU0oXMHEGPowtdD+P8+2T4b1+C2EOs89n5QDW/L2cP4Fbx/rp3 xnJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkfXNNXk++H7zu5EA+7iAu4uGtbPawZ9lmj0VVSt+wFAIIN9CWupKjYUj65G7ln9ZZCMzpD
X-Received: by 10.194.174.197 with SMTP id bu5mr8051509wjc.71.1394098717938; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:38:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-a727.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a727.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.167.39]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bm8sm14143718wjc.12.2014.03.06.01.38.35 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <DBAE1DE6-0929-40B3-A044-AF3560829F16@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:38:34 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DB8478A3-BC4C-4B87-8CAB-BC219FA4B7DD@inf-net.nl>
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> <67373A27-5AB2-47D3-B543-C0EB72D0AD7C@cisco.com> <CAGnRvuqHknFWoLyv5RjM3OcJ+g4WsRTphMH8d9wLQV+m+J+6uw@mail.gmail.com> <DBAE1DE6-0929-40B3-A044-AF3560829F16@cisco.com>
To: Stan Ratliff <sratliff@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet-dlep-rg/vKKYjM4ohC1_Jt1MElVmPAFnyjg
Cc: "DLEP Research Group, \(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>, 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: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:38:45 -0000

So we should throw away our PS radio’s?
Teco

Op 5 mrt. 2014, om 22:11 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <sratliff@cisco.com>; het volgende geschreven:

> OK, this is IMO, but…
> 
> That is pretty much a one-off, for a research or lab-type effort. As a professor of mine in college used to say, "No one in their right mind will ever use 802.11 adhoc for anything more than a development/research platform". I just don't see bending the protocol to put this in for no more use than we'll get out of it. 
> 
> After all, nothing stops you from inserting an extra TLV into your own implementation.
> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
>> One option to allow DLEP with adhoc wifi might be to configure the
>> local MAC address of the routers interface towards the DLEP radio with
>> the same mac address as the local radio.
>> 
>> This way you can send them over the wifi link without having to do a
>> nasty MAC-NAT style thing.
>> 
>> It would be a help to be able to reconfigure the MAC on the router
>> BEFORE I have to open the TCP session.
>> 
>> It might work reconfiguring it afterwards (will trigger new ARP/ICMPv6
>> requests I think).
>> 
>> Henning
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
>> <sratliff@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg