Re: [manet] DLEP Metric drafts

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:06 AM Henning Rogge <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:01 PM Abdussalam Baryun
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Henning,
> >
> > In the meeting I showed my interest, but one of the draft I
> explained/wanted to know the packet format to be added in draft (as you did
> not prefer to use manet-packet), my reason was that frequency band draft
> was not important to me only if I have a clear packet format between not
> only radio-router but also neighbours as a unified format related to
> frequency selected. However, for the other two draft I support totally.
>
> Just as a comment... my drafts are all DLEP (RFC 8175) extension
> drafts, so they have to comply to the DLEP packet and message
> format... packetbb (RFC 5444) is the data format for NHDP and OLSRv2,
> which does NOT apply to RFC 8175. The discussion about what data
> format we (as the MANET WG) want to use ended with publishing the RFC
> 8175.
>

If this draft is using DLEP format only....... then it is fine, so I
suggest it should mention that more in details. The DLEP draft is mostly
generalised, it is ok to have generalised extensions but some
information/details sections to back that up (e.g. DLEP RFC8175 gives some
guide of using it).

 I am interested to know benefit of the extension for manet, so I needed
more information.

I agree with RFC8175 totally, and I was discussing-every-day when authors
proposed the draft-00. I was discussing against the use of 5444 in the DLEP
(still do), because I want DLEP to be flexible to many technologies outside
MANET (maybe only OLSRv2 team were interested to add it).

Therefore,  now the DLEP is not only for MANETs as publishing 8175, so it
can be used with other IETF-WGs (let us leave it that way), so we can
discuss to look into more advantages within IETF. Furthermore, I notice
that rfc8175 does leave things open/general for discussion as it has
mentioned-assumptions and has things it did not end discussion about.

Overall DLEP 8175 did not talk about frequency selections/information, so
your draft opens such discussion. I was thinking of adding extending
8175-format in your draft because of  frequency selection, and not thinking
of using packetbb which was invented for OLSRv2.

 As I mentioned in IETF-meeting related to your draft to have a
defined-format, but I was not given enough time to reply to your
refuse, which I understand.
My reason for extended-format or defined-format, and not only
frequency-item extending, is that frequency-item to be flexible for
DLEP-functions, and which may use MIMO technology (e.g. some modems may
have two data stream over same frequency, using polarisation diversity).

Best Wishes,
AB