IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt

Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ratliffstan@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 1E83D126B6D; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:26:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 Fb87TXWsDoqe; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (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 E625A120724; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id p78so16486635iod.13; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:26:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n3Ozx9t7b1WLVCZbrWkVwcpJCHbb/rHU8EuWwwzqRBo=; b=TbgbZVch4owG6w7H4PYOPYc7ZYFN/AzYm1u5esJW6PBfjpbXpJ9Yl4fOneJsRBSU+z bkRWcNzzN8Gb3bhifOB9eZpK9N5Exp5D8P8KU6DaYYulBB+4zJk+1+Ah1q8to4xU6QxP vg7giWA8JsydtLBpXOj0UIC+S3thR9O829vWbk2Dv8R3OV9EqW/MTID32GWO9yq+BKwT mNyw1SOcdQCPJhpokgGTAEgaKnkpm45xs0jrv/GQns4L2/fHqOqewKmrwAm/wRuolOSs XvEQdWPcDHTdn801a5QrMjGOQoxKbk1QOx5uIZajpG7Azpig1Ku4bjhI/wwyMfy7Ug1N 1qsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n3Ozx9t7b1WLVCZbrWkVwcpJCHbb/rHU8EuWwwzqRBo=; b=o4bXzvooqAwybQu4AMnVYfvtDC6ISJ/EeUG2+glo7QyjOPJDaRpXplpEpdGVLUz+kK o5hH5Dz9R1uSKc/fyais1XPJ71jNca2OEdmCObd6D4cq2rhIT0k5w9j83YSqKPCKOWFM lI2IXbcLZIREcrTIQwucN+orFdprm/jIEB6yx/gi8MIR3WrYbLe6sQOUjWH3KOi1kKeB 4uE0R7ysEHgcVgnRWPSKz49B/NSA+V2HUeuLIiLT7Hf3fbkMW7+WCMTqVcSkhsOrBqZu cvOgLA4moXF0kXZY3NTobnMqsnh3bifJWhhe9/O8u1VKEvcNlc42md+aCpX768G5HTgT 35Jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDQkqHRzXZorvaF1o3nPtgaTF9ekA9QL66fxnx68OiH3QLpws1b ghoJZgPoL26SxVf06/BLa+8Oga4Ls1R88Hazm89new==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtpRTZQEzd7TAbtquH4I6WoIFtQzcYKElx46GpPg8h/6Jj0hisq3ybXK/6PmlkQqOUEJ47dtd6HLx2wXpvjz7o=
X-Received: by 10.107.143.151 with SMTP id r145mr1355601iod.297.1519162009078; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:26:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.162.79 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:26:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F0F6@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <151865086912.7521.1302513672018061966@ietfa.amsl.com> <e7dfe5c2-ba21-fc0b-121f-908f37cf6618@labn.net> <CADnDZ8-Kw6jDbBNer8nBmPFPwhin+hHDxovV1VajizPrK2Ra_Q@mail.gmail.com> <b183af7e-c416-85be-46b2-a2e32004cbcc@labn.net> <CADnDZ8_jLnnXcvT=bpXCK6Rc1DiB3Kx2uHUFJ3rMeTHDM_NboA@mail.gmail.com> <1b0c761b-9fda-49e0-8344-52750c232b74@labn.net> <4FEB14CD-DE8D-4735-9FCA-8912EB49AB82@ll.mit.edu> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801D330F0F6@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
From: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:26:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CALtoyomAAQB9usW-mfEAF_r5q0ibP-8meAEWsogAtbMTzetTfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Cc: "Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL" <David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, manet <manet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05a1ace853740565ab7785"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Df8_MvNkFVCDDONiQ5jLlVIZKCI>
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.txt
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:26:52 -0000

I agree with Rick on adding 'types'. So, I'll propose some text. Maybe this
will help?

"The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in any message where the
Latency Data Item [RFC8175] is allowed. The Latency Range Data Item MAY be
carried in addition to, or in lieu of, the Latency Data Item."

Regards,
Stan


>           The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in the same messages
>     ... as  the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].


On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com
> wrote:

> We have been fairly consistent in RFC8175 to refer to DLEP *messages*  I'm
> not sure adding 'types' helps...
>
> Rick
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wiggins, David
> -
> > 0665 - MITLL
> > Sent: 20 February 2018 18:47
> > To: Lou Berger; Abdussalam Baryun
> > Cc: manet; draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-
> extension-
> > 02.txt
> >
> > On 2/20/18, 12:42 PM, "manet on behalf of Lou Berger" <manet-
> > bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> >     On 2/19/2018 9:19 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> >     > But IMO it is not clear where the Latency Range item operates
> within
> >     > 8175,
> >     >
> >
> >     The draft currently says:
> >
> >           The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in the same messages
> >     ... as  the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
> >
> >     Is this not sufficient?
> >
> > Perhaps AB is reading this as "if a specific, on-the-wire message has a
> Latency
> > Data Item in it, then that particular message is allowed to have a
> Latency
> > Range Data Item.  Otherwise, it cannot have a Latency Range Data Item.
> > AB, is that your interpretation?  If so, then maybe just saying "message
> > types"
> > instead of "messages" is enough clarification.
> >
> > David
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email