Re: [manet] planned next steps based on IETF 102

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 02 August 2018 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 3DD17130E71 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 dAOXZErB4L7i for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D57C130E4A for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw13.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.13]) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4ADE1ABBE5 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:26:43 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id lEYtfRcVjYe1jlEYtfgE1X; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 08:26:43 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zXHS11cuoFO1D4DQIILl6j/SyuHPpL8SztK5Ra1v8l8=; b=ftuGHLyzdFa8cz7as9eE0zGzWW VloRucnYY/N79gPx05R0KcNAT4YPHIQk0r6IyvtXei+KZex1kNhPIq0TUNCvdeGZTc3VNW5eQaJrv F5ZP4EtNP4qJGTo29SgBcYus4;
Received: from pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.106.211]:33214 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1flEYt-004I7I-8O; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 08:26:43 -0600
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Cc: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
References: <59d144dd-4ed9-cbf1-77e6-10f07f52f901@labn.net> <bdae388c-85f8-d10c-0e11-f3fa6caff2a6@labn.net> <be52d31af54198d790b3b87dd8380be600bba8a9.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <6028a480-53a9-7399-94a0-fe0876811a6d@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:26:42 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <be52d31af54198d790b3b87dd8380be600bba8a9.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.106.211
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1flEYt-004I7I-8O
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.106.211]:33214
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 10
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/M1ylNaHqnzf4iNHsO61k2eYzri8>
Subject: Re: [manet] planned next steps based on IETF 102
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 14:53:59 -0000

Hi Rick,

On 8/2/2018 9:45 AM, Rick Taylor wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> I fully support the split (I was one of the proponents).
>
> Also I'm glad to see Stan's name back on the Credit Windowing draft, as
> we seem to have gone full-circle, but I think we are back to a sensible
> place.
Thanks - given's stan's message I'll push these versions of the 
documents today.

> I will give better feedback once I've had a chance to review the split
> more extensively.
great.

> I'm reserving judgement on the ether-credit extension, as I need to
> read the split drafts more carefully.  Yes, I want to use Ether-TOS
> markings (explicitly VLAN-IDs) but not necessarily with credit
> windowing.
This is enabled by the ethernet definition in the traffic classification 
DI.  Let me know if you disagree after your review.

>   I wonder whether we are requesting too many extension
> points from IANA, and whether fewer, e.g. FlowIDs, Credits, might be a
> better level of granularity, and result in less drafts just requesting
> an extensions point.
The extension point is needed to enable negotiation on session 
establishment so both endpoints know what the other supports and what 
functions are being used on the session.  Let's points would either 
result in ambiguity or the need for secondary negation. Again, let me/us 
know if you disagree after your review.

> I promise a more coherent response when I have some more time next
> week.
Thanks again!
Lou
> Cheers,
>
> Rick
>
>
> On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 13:40 -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Please see https://github.com/louberger/dlep-extensions to see a
>> preview
>> of the split discussed below (per IETF102).
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 6:02 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>        I wanted to confirm a few points discussed at the last
>>> meeting
>>> (hosted by CCAMP) before making any changes.  Here's what I
>>> understood
>>> from the meeting:
>>>
>>> 1) WRT draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-02 :
>>>
>>> The discussion concluded that the credit window control mechanisms
>>> (messages and DIs) should be split from the traffic classification
>>> mechanisms.  Assuming there is agreement, the traffic
>>> classification
>>> will be moved into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.
>>> Stan
>>> will also be added as an author of
>>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control as credit window control
>>> is
>>> derivative of his earlier work.
>>>
>>> Does anyone object to this change?
>>>
>>> Do the chairs agree with this change?  (once you do, I'll submit
>>> the
>>> related updates -- this impacts the four drafts.)
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) WRT draft-berger-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-00
>>>
>>> The few people in the room who were interested in the topic, were
>>> supportive of adopting this draft.
>>>
>>> WG chairs, can we proceed with an adoption poll or is the more WG
>>> organization decisions to be made?
>>>
>>> That's it,
>>> Lou
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>>> manet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet