Re: [manet-dlep-rg] notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Sat, 09 November 2013 06:59 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EF111E8160 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 22:59:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_OBFU_ALL=0.751]
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 61dRZB5kz-43 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 22:59:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-f182.google.com (mail-ea0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9676F11E813A for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 22:59:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f182.google.com with SMTP id o10so1571222eaj.27 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 22:59:38 -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=L86d8DbeibkX0jfsB+lCJW6lGaS6/XnZ+x0UsoK2Wa8=; b=aGVGsN7KdQoToprC2ZAI7shJWa/ohx1QZZf2xTEqACVqK8j1lFgXV1nWyrttKfNLZU vjSye6oU2yG5+Hc7HLBeJgpX8kedoN2uJQhKEqxMXRab054jtyJu36dr/JJDDavqbz15 hAvmSBycp+tIuzMdgTrmBxsYpabEJFd0CoS7aeTka7pBVtZZPjDiiIkdcqjnUpakmkfF 40gBvRSorpITWVBpVTlQJl96IoKCO5QPSPtzjBztwjWHYto5hP18tFDh2atKMvGkidc8 qXkKna9ICa0IDJ8dTjQHZvcAUP7jhP0hcMaxJ7ErxRG+IDxhfOsv7+lh2Gix3eyyAdgs AogA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPF8Rzxb8HDKonFnwKHz0OuuFflwOdpfO8KU+Pbv2XFi64qxL4WHDOdov8lHwHNSter8uI
X-Received: by 10.14.194.137 with SMTP id m9mr528303een.105.1383980378084; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 22:59:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.116] (5ED3D581.cm-7-4d.dynamic.ziggo.nl. [94.211.213.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k7sm24030452eeg.13.2013.11.08.22.59.32 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2013 22:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB50268E6C@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 07:58:56 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B2BA430A-F4E6-4DED-A7BB-7282A22802B7@inf-net.nl>
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>
To: "Duke, Martin" <Martin.Duke@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: "DLEP Research Group \(manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org\)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88
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: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 06:59:46 -0000

Good summary, thanks. Let’s only post the summary to the MANET ML.
Having minutes archived on DLEP-RG ML would be fine, I think.

On 7: It was not discussed during our meeting, at least not were I was present. And I don’t think this is a good idea. It is not needed and blocks more advanced usage of DLEP. Let’s not have a restriction in that a router or modem has only a single DLEP peer.

Teco

Op 8 nov. 2013, om 21:40 heeft Duke, Martin <Martin.Duke@boeing.com> het volgende geschreven:

> Thanks Ron. That matches the notes I have. I might also add this summary of what I think we agreed on in terms of changing/clarifying the spec, which perhaps is more interesting than the play-by-play:
> 
> 1. There are no metric TLVs it is MANDATORY for the Router to process.
> 2. The modem MUST report MDRT, MDRR, CDRT, and CDRR in the Peer Discovery message, and make a best effort to accurately report these metrics subsequently.
> 3. The modem and router MUST include DLEP version in Peer Discovery and Peer Offer messages.
> 4. The modem MUST include a Heartbeat Interval/Threshold TLV in its Peer Discovery messages. It is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED that the Interval be a nonzero value.
> 5. The modem MUST include all metric TLVs it reports in the Peer Discovery Message to allow the router to initialize its session control block.
> 6. The Router MUST NOT include metric TLVs in a Link Characteristics Request message that were not in the session's Peer Discovery message.
> 7. The modem MUST NOT send Peer Discovery messages if it has an existing Peer Session.
> 8. Both router and modem MUST send a Heartbeat Message to the peer if it has sent no DLEP message in an interval equivalent to the Heartbeat Interval value in the Peer Discovery Message. It MAY send a Heartbeat Message in every instance of the interval regardless of any other DLEP traffic.
> 9. Both router and modem MUST reset their Heartbeat timer when any DLEP message arrives from the peer.
> 10. The Heartbeat Interval/Threshold TLV becomes a "Heartbeat Interval TLV." Any DLEP peer is free to set any threshold for terminating the peer session as long as it equals or exceeds two Heartbeat Intervals, unless the Heartbeat Interval is zero.
> 11. We will combine Expected Forwarding Time and Latency TLVs into a single, well-defined TLV.
> 12. Delete the Resources TLVs.
> 13. Keep the RLQ TLV, but Rick and Stan will formulate a stricter definition. There will be no other link quality TLVs (e.g. BER, packet delivery rate, SINR, etc) in the next draft.
> 14. Stan to add clarifying language on how multicast neighbors work, in line with what he said at the meeting.
> 
> As Ron said, the form of the Credits TLVs are unresolved at this moment.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't [mailto:Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:58 PM
> To: Ulrich Herberg
> Cc: john.dowdell@cassidian.com; john.dowdell486@gmail.com; Rick.Taylor@cassidian.com; Duke, Martin; Teco Boot (teco@inf-net.nl); sratliff@cisco.com; Henning Rogge (hrogge@googlemail.com); jpmacker@gmail.com; bcheng@ll.mit.edu
> Subject: RE: notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88
> 
> I leave that up to the DLEP veterans to decide. They may want to "redact" these notes a bit ;-)
> 
> Ronald
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name]
>> Sent: vrijdag 8 november 2013 2:44
>> To: Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't
>> Cc: john.dowdell@cassidian.com; john.dowdell486@gmail.com; 
>> Rick.Taylor@cassidian.com; Martin.Duke@boeing.com; Teco Boot (teco@inf- 
>> net.nl); sratliff@cisco.com; Henning Rogge (hrogge@googlemail.com); 
>> jpmacker@gmail.com; bcheng@ll.mit.edu
>> Subject: Re: notes DLEP meeting @ IETF88
>> 
>> Thanks. Do you want to send them out to the MANET mailing list?
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't 
>> <Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Please find attached my *raw* notes of our meeting on Tuesday.
>> Disclaimer: Neither completeness nor correctness are guaranteed.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ronald in 't Velt
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> TNO Technical Sciences
>>> 
>>> Network Technology dept.
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. 
>>> Indien u niet
>> de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, 
>> wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te 
>> verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van 
>> deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke 
>> aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If 
>>> you
>> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, 
>> you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO 
>> accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in 
>> which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks 
>> inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
> 
> 
> 
> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
> 
> 
> 
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
>