IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06: (with COMMENT)

Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> Sat, 01 July 2017 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.dearlove@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 A491712896F; Sat, 1 Jul 2017 09:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2m3_dgYiMaSw; Sat, 1 Jul 2017 09:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (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 C3A7C127868; Sat, 1 Jul 2017 09:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id j85so12906692wmj.0; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 09:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=KIy5m25+B8IQy6RwQCYCTwBZJrCSxnG8wJAwOG6Vwz4=; b=N/Z2Osp7pKvdQg4Op8tAuqyFCZXoIAdjq0ly+aa390iBt05ug9ZTydpwrKvYY53em2 BU9qkxGWkCIzDDOJG/XRDAD9/I2xrqVWZf9RWPLrM8u4wZPEIjGXYRF9kn/pIENVK0+6 s1EQx8yx0GCebc4fsMdhu/BUFd522yZOQJm2JH6epTdekHd2EXrYdvVNg7Fm+tsWN/wK 9ll4G3ttEDlLOx1tfm0XyKTr3zlmTS/+hjxNIP1FtGwMz4JH6yxZgS2o8n/rbdad+mXg 7fUXr6bevPlegcBwRngWUpjvry3oDHFdwBWRE689i7awFijbISDYNjIZQd3YFwZuYDQq hjLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=KIy5m25+B8IQy6RwQCYCTwBZJrCSxnG8wJAwOG6Vwz4=; b=JGQ1dTvRiRIrnCHSE0qxKDLVFDb6jFVtopYA/cTcqbyGdAmMi4Fx8K1eFD2Wb5TaCr xu+wVjjA8y1li/cbL3Szi4yDZFt4QfcpDN/rzy2KHv/wj5xz4QJtUSQFPb2eBtKCQUXC kBIuSSeCjXV+va6w0Iuxhyd+jY2+W7RCZduJxwPjN8OL/IJm/T2ZZl+b4uSv9wfvPvOI f6ENG9Tix6u+f9eOvPFhs9Xhje+O2o+ea1Ur3blT+8JINbmThsMiVJwE+LcVS5fBdiza EYPccMl1KKirlZDURqcDbY8oc0Nrn/9YyfmN34zQg23wAmUhLgG58twwD8I2r0K7CJ+4 os3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOy9KGNiKXmnKOAXAYiuu224LexqfQoKMlLjy3auyl7MCRwFPGao YESxi6ckhtwSCecOwH8=
X-Received: by 10.80.142.27 with SMTP id 27mr9034076edw.104.1498924822978; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 09:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.54] (host-78-147-128-22.as13285.net. [78.147.128.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r28sm4541047edd.33.2017.07.01.09.00.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 01 Jul 2017 09:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
References: <149891219829.467.11215440795810101248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <149891219829.467.11215440795810101248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <E3ABB85B-BDDE-40FA-A1FA-41B66A54C678@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, manet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage@ietf.org, manet-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14F89)
From: Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2017 17:00:20 +0100
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/9XT99hIUTRAVXeaZM-VZz6Kb2fY>
Subject: Re: [manet] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 01 Jul 2017 16:00:28 -0000

Mirja

Thank you for that.

The short version is that the position strongly recommended was the WG consensus. The authors of this draft, and of NHDP and OLSRv2, could definitely have lived with a MUST for those protocols. However reactive protocols (such as the then still active AODVv2 draft) have a problem with unmodifiable messages if a route reply is to collect any information on its return path, something that is required if using link metrics. (At least not without other serious problems.)

So, in short, there's a use case that would violate a MUST. But it should be avoided if possible, hence the agreed wording.

--  
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@gmail.com

> On 1 Jul 2017, at 13:29, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> One question:
> I’m wondering why the following is not a MUST. Can you maybe provide more
> information in the draft when modification might be okay? „It is strongly
> RECOMMENDED that messages are not modified in the
>      latter case, other than updates to their hop count and hop limit
>      fields“
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email