From nobody Mon May 1 03:34:16 2023 Return-Path: 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 1F26EC151B19 for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 03:34:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NKYyhaBqGQV3 for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 03:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 681F1C151999 for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 03:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-50bc4d96e14so7818735a12.1 for ; Mon, 01 May 2023 03:34:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682937250; x=1685529250; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=7w/L2N/1XTMu+TUkvWFe2xmVi3PG6w/nZNN70a+mpN8=; b=CrNlB7OYL510L89aYVYAnLXyYEOwCykGcWvHnWcgjMgJ0lLT+IjFfZJLhk6WHt07Ua Eswr+cVZRoSdhJELFU1AYoGB6flQVHIG7q8coXPg19fw6YQhS2GLfltU85id+EKM8bMS N1tAhhr1wyzzs9A4diKQx3LL91/KsJEQt3jP3PFt/B5n0jsFQuKXf/q/PWU2Xi3AWgfQ vrnjQEV3iAnAsbmQWOZwCjiLfnyIo8CeUkoqA2Ook3DDjEhFvqbv8iuxst8XJ9K3oUrW XCgiHlnKo+HBl7kOw5TkdIq9fR0+QyoQYzhmhaUhBRm1efshf5mYYLoDv1eJYmABt5pc nJzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682937250; x=1685529250; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7w/L2N/1XTMu+TUkvWFe2xmVi3PG6w/nZNN70a+mpN8=; b=UHi6d8QYF1Su9ECQY57F/OygDOEzBtjaZdjfGrITYVQS/hfBe9rvYV9jxzAFZP/CG6 oYZvnoBiFWe65xcl6msNH3+Wha3nIQmmNHPgXsC8HdwZdRaFsxLbhhP3pVov0+YabK0z J9N9ftCBx6iE7ihY+Jl5UJTg4iRmzzw5k8SJXGA8RGKqFXzimlv4WtnkSSnU7rthyy1p /hfg5Q9EeAyoHZoBGZzVLmtqH8ZfSjMbH/KWCvN+L3vmUqoMXYndUZTD47XXEpTrzaPl p0z8PpWC+ZwySqgJYudhOliUrGFVY5LEwueOLWLcejvscNrN9NKMsYxvtHkq7zZrHoVG mvlw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxUdzZj72aJgD57MfLvw/IR1PZO2MuPmt+FKtZ+QutX00Ox7tBn KBjBk5TVERhVdO4cGhmveb8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4cTqvNGj5JCJsPZe69a/KVbS8nVo7MDKDDxax031+Wlkk6g0EZHnwonEQ9IZEvK+ttGGt86Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:b0f:b0:94a:4e86:31bc with SMTP id h15-20020a1709070b0f00b0094a4e8631bcmr15467738ejl.13.1682937249536; Mon, 01 May 2023 03:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (82-132-226-212.dab.02.net. [82.132.226.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z16-20020a1709063ad000b0094f71500bfesm14575819ejd.4.2023.05.01.03.34.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 May 2023 03:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\)) From: Christopher Dearlove In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 11:33:57 +0100 Cc: "manet@ietf.org IETF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6F5AB9FE-5869-42AB-8311-8ED4BA83C8ED@gmail.com> References: <20230428120229.2CD1A55D5E@rfcpa.amsl.com> <6A3011F2-D55B-40E3-9156-A5DCEF5A763F@gmail.com> To: Henning Rogge X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.500.231) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [manet] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7466 (7477) X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 10:34:15 -0000 Link quality or link metric? And in the latter case, incoming or = outgoing? In the case of incoming link metric - which is the link metric this = router is responsible for defining - there is this text in section = 15.3.2.1 of RFC 7181 o For any Link Tuple, L_in_metric MAY be set to any representable value by a process outside this specification at any time. So that case is covered. In the case of link quality - section 4.4 of RFC 6130 - this is = something only used locally. While there isn=E2=80=99t text directly = equivalent to the above, as it's just local, nothing you do can cause an = interoperability issue. > On 1 May 2023, at 10:38, Henning Rogge wrote: >=20 > Great... now we have spam in IETF Erratas??? >=20 > By the way, I think I identified a 'problem' with how the combination > of NHDP and OLSRv2 reacts to a suddenly breaking link... A coworker of > mine identified during a test that the metric algorithm can NOT change > the quality of a link when it suddenly breaks, which is quite annoying > if you have a long Hello Validity time. Anyone interested in details? >=20 > Henning Rogge >=20 > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 9:44=E2=80=AFPM Don Fedyk = wrote: >>=20 >> Several chairs are reporting spam Erratta in their working groups. = If you see more of these that don=E2=80=99t make any sense no need to = address them. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Don >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> From: manet On Behalf Of Justin Dean >> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 10:39 AM >> To: Christopher Dearlove >> Cc: RFC Errata System ; manet@ietf.org = IETF ; T.Clausen@computer.org; = rajeevsurroach11@gmail.com; ronald.intvelt@tno.nl; = andrew-ietf@liquid.tech; jgs@juniper.net >> Subject: Re: [manet] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7466 (7477) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Ah you are correct as nearly always, I just saw the MANET and NHDP = and thought NHDP. The RFC number didn't seem right but it's been too = long. >>=20 >> Justin (not a co-author of 7466) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 10:17=E2=80=AFAM Christopher Dearlove = wrote: >>=20 >> I feel that as a mere author, I can only make suggestions to the RFC = editor. But, yes, as suggestions go, it=E2=80=99s quite a strong one. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> (Incidentally Justin, I think you=E2=80=99ve got this one confused = with another one - this one just has Thomas and I as authors.) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 28 Apr 2023, at 15:10, Justin Dean wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> "Suggest" rejecting seems a little too permissive. Unless there was = some issue with the reporting and there is more that just didn't get = included it should be rejected. >>=20 >> Justin Dean (also Co-author of this RFC.) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 9:04=E2=80=AFAM Christopher Dearlove = wrote: >>=20 >> There appears to be a problem here. First, there is no Section 7466. = Second, the original and corrected texts are the same. >>=20 >> (Also, were this to be an erratum, the notes would be entirely = inadequate.) >>=20 >> I suggest rejecting this erratum. >>=20 >> Christopher Dearlove >> (Co-author of this RFC.) >>=20 >>> On 28 Apr 2023, at 13:02, RFC Errata System = wrote: >>>=20 >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7466, >>> "An Optimization for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood = Discovery Protocol (NHDP)". >>>=20 >>> -------------------------------------- >>> You may review the report below and at: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7477 >>>=20 >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Type: Technical >>> Reported by: Rajeev Kumar Surroach >>>=20 >>> Section: 7466 >>>=20 >>> Original Text >>> ------------- >>> 7466 >>>=20 >>> Corrected Text >>> -------------- >>> 7466 >>>=20 >>> Notes >>> ----- >>> Solve the issue >>>=20 >>> Instructions: >>> ------------- >>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party >>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >>>=20 >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC7466 (draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization-04) >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Title : An Optimization for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network = (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) >>> Publication Date : March 2015 >>> Author(s) : C. Dearlove, T. Clausen >>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>> Source : Mobile Ad-hoc Networks >>> Area : Routing >>> Stream : IETF >>> Verifying Party : IESG >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet