[manet] Radio phy-layer data in DLEP
Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Thu, 31 March 2022 11:16 UTC
Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A728E3A11A3 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 3BgQzL6b9te8 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5923A1930 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id x4so28177584iop.7 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YQvFyDwfM/yhUpXwg5GsmQkY6mNsn/h8UBqEEwn+Yo4=; b=Inaq22MKClxDDKXBRHgBsJMuNLHLBAn0yEtgA4XX4hn7EfD+z2LnNzaW267oj7l/gL yVSlM1CVJ+lI3c5HVuKccupTWWBCuEw5zPI436ths8LBZ1VUVAIg9awEgbfyBPlF6QeJ V7T/VGm26MZ+VteQZeet/iJuaRL3vOZ1TSDV/6ZpHjXspw+X0AYdUHrdlVWfOZ0peqiy gmrx4LIfRsu4z4ftft1QLdoNqUr+cVUiYIMtr/rDF2kHt4kuuU243iNLSlgGI91IIpzE UEdZrNZNhOa/r98G7LFOhSPUY8mmajfySiKlTiJoUixUzODbOJxFg0IwrRlCPwf+sITn y2vA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YQvFyDwfM/yhUpXwg5GsmQkY6mNsn/h8UBqEEwn+Yo4=; b=N0RmxB7nOL5XHWWc1AxhsNPDNdq3g8ZB1syCMOrwShsK2wlyJeS13GqVYlfJpvTffs xI6/6yMv0cc8TUU/6HUt5QhSBbYCx9Yz68T8pAsIbOHvo27rTLoeeq5qlpjRj0KgoYJp xWQXl1qH+rPBbTtdqh2G2yS5SLdMDE+aYfvDPF2DjpksoJDiqfx0fwCciYl08yazy48Y 0h3GXSbW1tIAvA95cvXuaYYBSSXWgsto7WGHO/5vA0DnJVEMfQIQ/8sjO8HHCGlNjZ8B NtFaGbnrA14wx/JEKCOoG8kmCexCGihuXVgYwp/udOCceSRQlNLD16R480k8JIi8JISF tZ4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qFPMvbO9nSuw/tdtvbhnHGhguH7+Kn6a6wDMO3FAYFFQchOOO EY3p5x3K0tD2d7h7jrekacAkMjA3KciflPRy63dGYJJT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwcbSartcbUkTczDmUQRN6m5a23xELTTGLtZtx/4Krq0c2uqZ6lP82qPagRuc1lVU7QJD/F2ShAaANBCoy2caQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:4901:b0:323:8e95:7da4 with SMTP id cx1-20020a056638490100b003238e957da4mr2843544jab.9.1648725338981; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:13:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvur9=wh+iqRsohuK-_6zRAUCH_Yqu=yCTmqdH2r1qOfm-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/5rtmn3nmerg2NxcyMf6hs_A1-n0>
Subject: [manet] Radio phy-layer data in DLEP
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:16:12 -0000
Hello, I had some time to think about the issues with phy-layer data and radios with multiple transceivers. The trouble is that all three phy-layer related drafts have the problem that the provided data is transceiver specific, so we should have a common solution for all three of them. I see at the moment three solutions. 1.) A "radio transceiver" TLV which contains subtlvs 2.) Each phy-related TLVs allow an array of data values instead of a single value. This would mean that the number of items in these TLVs and their order must be the same on all TLVs 3.) Each phy-related TLV gets an additional "transceiver index" number, which states which TLVs belong to the same transceiver. This could be in addition to a "Transceiver count" TLV. All of these three options have their disadvantages, either in encoding/decoding complexity or in some common information correlated among different TLVs. What do you think would be the best solution. I would like to address this issue and provide a new version of the three Drafts so we can move forward. Henning Rogge
- [manet] Radio phy-layer data in DLEP Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] Radio phy-layer data in DLEP Abdussalam Baryun