Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-05

thanks!

On 3/15/2019 1:11 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't wrote:
> Lou,
>
> Another nit, see below.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: manet <manet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: vrijdag 15 maart 2019 17:10
>> To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-
>> hop-extension@ietf.org
>> Cc: manet@ietf.org; Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group <manet-
>> chairs@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-
>> extension-05
>>
>>
>> On 3/15/2019 11:47 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>>> On March 8, 2019 at 9:54:24 AM, Lou Berger (lberger@labn.net
>>> <mailto:lberger@labn.net>) wrote:
>>>
>>> Lou:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Thanks for getting this done.
>>>
>>> I have a couple of nits below — and will also send a reply to your
>>> exchange with Justin.   I’ll start the IETF LC in a couple of minutes.
>>>
>>> Alvaro.
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> 72 1. Introduction
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> 80 Some modem technologies support connectivity to destinations
>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>> 81 multi-hop forwarding.  DLEP Destination messages can be used
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> 82 report such connectivity, see [RFC8175], but do not provide
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> 83 information related to the number or capacity of the hops. The
>>>>>>>> 84 extension defined in this document enables modems to inform
>>>>>>>> routers
>>>>>>>> 85 when multi-hop forwarding is being used, and routers to
>>>>>>>> request that
>>>>>>>> 86 modems change multi-hop forwarding behavior.  The extension
>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>> 87 in this document is referred to as "Multi-Hop Forwarding".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [major] Please define "multi-hop forwarding" in the context of
>>>>>>>> the modems.
>>>> Done, please see the changes at the repo posted above and let me know
>>>> if the changes are sufficient.
>>> Yes, I think that’s fine.  Just a nit: there’s some orphaned text
>>> (“example using”) left in the new text.
>>>
>>>
>> woops - thanks.
>>> ...
>>>>>>>> 166   Reserved:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 168      MUST be set to zero by the sender (a modem) and ignored
>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>> 169      receiver (a router).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [major] I think that a registry for these bits is needed.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise anyone can use them...
>>>> My inclination would be to establish a registry on the second usage
>>>> of the reserved field.  Right now I don't see additional uses and it
>>>> seems like a lot of unneeded overhead at this point.  Of course,
>>>> you're the AD so your view counts for more ;-)
>>> …but you still didn’t define the registry. :-(
>>>
>>> Seriously:  it’s ok.  I trust that the next user will do the right thing.
>>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> I've pushed your and some other nit changes to the repo, but don't think
>> they need hold anything.
> ... and then there is a then that should be a than 😉 (line 191 in the latest repo version: "any messages other THAN a Link Characteristics Response Message.")
>
> Thanks,
> Ronald
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 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.