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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 31 July 2018 17:44 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 EA9B6130F47 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 CqD1UViN9Ydr for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (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 BAD52130F34 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw14.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.14]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5AAC43B54 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:40:10 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id kYd0fm7WkvdTukYd0faxxf; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:40:10 -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:References:Cc:To:From: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=ssUMIvfO49r9oSEkK5SOhYd1ySPJPML2EE3FvHiDHCQ=; b=CJyMTJTAy8H5kNvXW+n1VvWxCD APJ71FvKAl0Tr5x0YOD2WbSyB2xzlUz9zwgF31ZWvHBca/sMJYOrBPcqcqZrycLPMoV7FrTxRC1kW hEZDXm0D0Pg+6LuxECQpn04v6;
Received: from pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.106.211]:44258 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 1fkYd0-001Avz-FY; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:40:10 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Cc: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
References: <59d144dd-4ed9-cbf1-77e6-10f07f52f901@labn.net>
Message-ID: <bdae388c-85f8-d10c-0e11-f3fa6caff2a6@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:40:09 -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: <59d144dd-4ed9-cbf1-77e6-10f07f52f901@labn.net>
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: 1fkYd0-001Avz-FY
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]:44258
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Org: HG=bhcustomer;ORG=bluehost;
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/VniCGKPsQnxuH9r3h8zoeVilMQI>
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: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:44:46 -0000

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