Re: [manet] New DLEP extension draft for WG

Rick Taylor <> Wed, 27 January 2021 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E743A0BD7 for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 07:51:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pEEOZo2-NHQt for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 07:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 825CC3A0BF1 for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 07:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([fe80::48e4:acbb:6065:8168]) by ([fe80::48e4:acbb:6065:8168%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0509.000; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:49:22 +0000
From: Rick Taylor <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [manet] New DLEP extension draft for WG
Thread-Index: AQHW9LC2kC3CssNzpkyiY7Mrt3EEbKo7nyKA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:49:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1
x-originating-ip: [2a02:1648:4000:120::5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] New DLEP extension draft for WG
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: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:51:40 -0000

Hi Henning,

> I finally got to the point where I had time to publish the first
> parts of my DLEP extensions I would like the Manet WG to adopt. I
> talked with Ronald and we agreed that I keep the drafts quite
> "narrow".

"Narrow" is good, but in my opinion if you have <6 data items that are
all very much in the same context, e.g. Radio Signal Info, it mike make
sense to roll them all up into 1 extension.  I suppose the test would
be that if an implementation supports 1 data item, then it probably
could support the others, but that is a little subjective.

The disadvantage is that you then need to specify which data items MUST
be used by an implementation supporting the extension, and which are

> At the moment I plan to do two more drafts about PHY aspects of the
> radio (signal strength related stuff and channel utilization) before
> moving to MAC related TLV extensions.

I think these radio data items sound like they are logically all part
of the same extension.

I do have a question: As DLEP is primarily about informing layer-3
devices about dynamic layer-2 capabilities, are radio signal metrics
really of use to a router?  To me they sound a lot like layer-1
information, if you get my meaning, and I wonder why a router would
even care?

Can you explain why you think these data items are important to a
layer-3 device?  I think I'm looking for a "rationale" section in the

I understand that you have done some work before around Airtime Cost
Metrics derived from signal information, so I wonder whether the modem
should be exposing a derived data item (post-processing) rather than
the raw radio signal data items (pre-processing).  My assumption is
that the DLEP protocol is significantly slower than the computation. 

I suppose the counter-argument is that there is really no such thing as
a "useless" metric, and I can imagine some routers in the near future
using AI to predict link behaviour - I expect someone is already doing
a PhD on that right now!