Re: [manet] DLEP Metric drafts

Abdussalam Baryun <> Fri, 24 September 2021 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FAF3A1BC4 for <>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uxb6j1lwIgcF for <>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CD0D3A1C86 for <>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t28so10928273wra.7 for <>; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jnIlh0vtuG1oSUFds288QCC+uwmFOOQjxctC7NJ4ZIM=; b=h8lYwj7Szlge09iL9LI3M+F3qKF/mK9SSCU2c9uyx9kox1shxxJ9l7hRnFK2wX+8l8 AeAUFcPjRIJ8CaIleJRohOhzUnt1JuiV+4oxs56+q6Z3kRFGcKwSLyobipaLx2oybdbt gy6+AYE8fBEd1x4h+QQZrFsdgb0hDIGwyDJxQqDX7BKzCxLNq0Jsgv8z2gpxrd43sNPY 6AH0e4Cg3Tx5mDVR26UELRFNtHBmm3wxxMbYXfraTI2lgeVtQSnN5j/cnDP8TOSMmLgn ReU+3je7Y/RrAdcmRJS3Gs1VLiJRE2acfd593mi02Hhw7bveVi51GyA+ocqV4I/f1ME2 0Dgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jnIlh0vtuG1oSUFds288QCC+uwmFOOQjxctC7NJ4ZIM=; b=Z89jFzlvggNeP5orf43+dew5VmsOAoIEBh3K3CWB5yLxEjZI6SI9Gnr2WNmXMEzntW nLwjiWGsrPOMwYI64gu7eGCUev+rmSKXGV5C59QbQZFqM9FQn2KT6lX0CQZqFkBiWYEk 1GQ4v2Vp8tXGUjzvYpJZ2TtlGLxK7SOP6cPzwjCzQXEhDrpUkxfJtebqp/ciN2yzpw5h NsYvqqv9f5vtc/EgDSlT4Esc+SO6AfXeDv7raLk1Aqlm7q2+vr/n0rvGswzDU0KTHgxQ /KBSLfSiRynvmPNmeUpcNIXDYm4LJUr52YUTuJUiN+nlsdWZFaotTRb7I2mw18Tz2Ebf 9GTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wxLYVe9wzK42ZzMgubw+3QNHEePNA2iE64kMCjeu8+gPXQZev pEkQWGf2Zeq5wsOS2SAPyZp1dEsV9EbUHeeaQkU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwsaGdprf8a1pvkelyxvPfPldGLR9HQiTTypNyUNR6BWqzYMeXBRgWTMbK/X3mFwsML8HIyNpwYCUQXSOaaniE=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cf0b:: with SMTP id l11mr425512wmg.176.1632467673310; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:05:33 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Henning Rogge <>
Cc: "Rogge, Henning" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c6684605ccb87f14"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP Metric drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:15:48 -0000

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:06 AM Henning Rogge <> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:01 PM Abdussalam Baryun
> <> 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,