[manet] DLEP Latency Range Extension

Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com> Mon, 11 March 2019 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <bebemaster@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 B94C313122D for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:20:49 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 Wt4nM6IsbNUk for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (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 CA2B813122F for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id z17so444867qtn.4 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=D2FDej7dteyEZTs8mpabQYwK4Wb3pijebbACmCVOxtI=; b=X62Vb4o/rVB+teD2TqovT+3JN96WkKSxOSJuix7fS8A0fK1uDFnzJDOSh37ilibUnk mjXs3XyyH0kNMcQKRnCpDhpTuNfsTrMg7HucsoP0JlX6UabV+koRL1WV1ohBA7eUFmbw iai7gVabnIt3Db9Vii96c5aOX4liEtq0wDDEIXgpVJo9puKRhL2i22wkBjB6n7sCsMhD IQLqNFVbDtUyyGo3mh+PaFqzgPidqzcnCAAsBvpUlJFxzNK8tETAka48qx39S2uyGYc7 wbrD6/k5XOjMJngz/F6pBi3mQWkknBVenS5vIHvyaHIoGzaqBignAKXacnD6Lbt07bLs fBlQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=D2FDej7dteyEZTs8mpabQYwK4Wb3pijebbACmCVOxtI=; b=SOzg9jkl3TODMf+nHS1XQbGXz0NFHM7RBlsYV0+HlFdFaDvYoagCA/KkERV0XoTUgv j8jINBys+sjS/2qv0k75Iw6uihGTs7GHLJfLs/OFWMb9UutFsg7p8NR5sHN6Wc8yBk0z p1kIdHh622vmey5b/ozHZ9EMwdNJD8MPemLR5ajWkBuspgnewc7U3xJ+BvctYqD/xwGW BvnUB4A7ytu5NwSnkQZ96qs1UqJvzjPGtjRhb25SKJPuEIGFYSZ8eZ3d4r8oNc6F/lcM MOFQeBZC7IEuT9FamqUTA8Kh+MhjszyEpzn7+fiZ5vGEpzqs/fcCg86wNerZyTXWNCxf Snug==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXXssa9atryAgjoCQQUQGa8sFfNLdtXJiMgj/SfbqryhI7M6Vw2 pfmDT4Z+fKWGoJteGW2D7faV2DMOMOYKSh0ft5m4autk
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx/wxvgLvGt7EVgunggA4eptR8fXF1UYdS0V8c31kDCZu2YxDGlS3TdY1oJ2n7wbj2kFJbixp3T/ebM0yefh6E=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:554d:: with SMTP id o13mr27881060qtr.105.1552342846624; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:20:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+-pDCfWNO_q0uwXtWggXZpQxphJhJVsryaYidWZUZf13ViZYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f157650583d8fbf8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/EO2xvzL71dH2jQd4vuiJ2w9FYno>
Subject: [manet] DLEP Latency Range Extension
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:20:54 -0000

The document has been submitted to the IESG for publication.

I do have one nit which can be taken care of in future revisions.  The
range min/maxim is stated in the abstract in a overly fuzzy way.  The
packets may experience that delay....but they may not?  The definition of
the Maximum Latency and Minimum Latency in section 3 appear to prohibit
this, and the range is an absolute range, not a best effort guess for 99%
of the packets to be within the specified range.

Suggested fix to the abstract. s/may/can

Suggested fix to section 3  (but for both max and min)

A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
      delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
      transmitted over the link.

A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
      delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is
      transmitted over the link.