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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2/20/18, 12:42 PM, "manet on behalf of Lou Berger" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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?


Yes but also that we already have for Latency item per message types, MUST,
MAY, SHOULD,


>   If so, then maybe just saying "message types"
> instead of "messages" is enough clarification.
>

That may conflict with the MUST in section 12.6, which is a MUST carry
message type.

AB