Re: [manet] New DLEP extension draft for WG

"Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <> Mon, 01 February 2021 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355423A0D3A for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 02:49:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lkv06__-3S8K for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 02:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 996AB3A0C5C for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 02:49:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; l=2492; s=mta1; t=1612176562; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yIsu/pmuoyQ3Hf8nMIH9kNjTUFRl59HY1uvE45j+gPw=; b=Kj8ICU2VSlTS0pwhSAkzmZetc9vBjXFyZoShUu9ORuw19XLWJyGEwrAH /JIEdXFKQ6+AQyDjqJnh0Sl+jm1ZqU11ak9selkW53m0LX1I2tLAk4/GD XgA0fxrzybmK5w9mA+jagTYhFW4EJe9HMHV3wtO+x1Qu9HxipFGIPt2Fd 0=;
IronPort-SDR: L24ljnGUbeoEKdR1Lvj6EjjhKeX3g19Q7xi+ZjHxrQmcBJT2nluw6OheC289hhLCNe24I6h3Rk CB2Zrtn7YRY/L38pcpt6Y0zFzCg7DC+R0sckcUSIcXp69kXltLDEeFIbq8a1pT0sIdpxX/1K1R BATbfc7cmNnQlxASJizj0PGdE8p3Z4Ln5d8eXGJ8Sw30j9GNHB8QGpaKk8VZO2hTxkdjsGP/0y ZpMAQIi4YmDOtfDvsJZovkSsL8kvWsnLp2zoLZohYdyIMK1cveIhS+FCncPWK6N+IqP9vUYSWL J/zIOzB9CI0RvHfsSfMDsf2x
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,392,1602540000"; d="scan'208";a="22760703"
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:49:19 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::c142:976e:5281:8298]) by ([fe80::c142:976e:5281:8298%7]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:49:19 +0100
From: "Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <>
To: Henning Rogge <>, MANET IETF <>
Thread-Topic: [manet] New DLEP extension draft for WG
Thread-Index: AQHW9LC2kC3CssNzpkyiY7Mrt3EEbKo7nyKAgAAES4CAAN4LAIABpC+lgAS56QCAADvscA==
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 10:49:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, nl-NL
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-esetresult: clean, is OK
x-esetid: 37303A29CD96A667667767
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 10:49:25 -0000



> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet <> On Behalf Of Henning Rogge
> Sent: maandag 1 februari 2021 8:36
> Subject: Re: [manet] New DLEP extension draft for WG
> So what would be a good next step?

I am trying hard to have an opinion on this 😊

The 'radio bands' I-D that you submitted last week has narrow scope indeed. Continuing in this way, we will have two more similarly scoped physical layer oriented drafts and a couple(?) of MAC layer oriented ones. Maybe aggregating them into one document per layer is not a bad idea after all. (Yes, I am changing my mind). For now, I would keep them as different extensions. Rick makes a valid point, that you are then faced with the question what it means to say "this DLEP implementation supports RFC 9nnn".  Which parts are mandatory and which are optional?

> Do we (Manet WG) wait until the next meeting (March)? Or should I post the
> other two Drafts I mentioned so we can talk about if we want to combine
> them or keep them apart?

Please post what you have in whichever form you prefer (aggregated or split out), so we can get a discussion started on the list now.


> Henning Rogge
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.