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

Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com> Thu, 02 August 2018 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <bebemaster@gmail.com>
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 58514130E27 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FfxiXfLYNDmC for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD15E130F1B for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e19-v6so2631714qtp.8 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yh0s9vETuXLdqgRDCP2f3e3YxQYP3MMWKvkcajU46uk=; b=VY5XZuA2CNPt75NkzPaIUg5LvSha/eqX+lLzwnnU9Ha/SsjpwUVrhVGkHcKdGT6h6Z zHiXAz1yb4i204VVLw/p/YNa+lulsomUH9rmoDkIASCzrfKftsNVHKkcRb8lyUp6vrJS 7ZrY55SuJLF2G7oDSSp5n/opSpOt0rsZzNqMqVrLSQWtLw4Y+zGbVhnMVovTA3zw6vEq +9LwJ8z09VOH2xF5gUHhBXdF+IfA/vZ6cEqZk19tf/Sm1aqmp4gjnbpLWy5NOsb86g2C 8y8x/CYtIFDIQEge1OdZK+YYZQAzdBJty+bErPNDCDMRxJl26jh7QPvo7tzpHuMdin6d 1S0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yh0s9vETuXLdqgRDCP2f3e3YxQYP3MMWKvkcajU46uk=; b=DAAeurVSY96P60LG8wZdPJh7spy7d1Xwfdeaznx1fsqPC0w3sttas0vQ+rjr42z71H 0mjI/q9UsCL8O3+BMkJRipZKk8jnd8Xei08kuvtYCeoNOnH4Ie3PBkSSH2OTO40AEzDN /TGmexXe/uoJkMmutY0cEsl03HfmUeoIiQAblgFGAlX4BD1ZyFy0NPRq4C2ZBvadOL3q Y8qxepB8itulPeRCOXuQRSEDh5HO5SPBIfUayLeChEucFEEg/ljYvbLt2m3t9aabreX+ cI/fIVoAWxQDRv8lTcDeR35WUwhTO6YaZw+JR6+lJpaz6vOn7yqsj3Ze8EJMnn78L+zw v1Tg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEzgkclZxHis7B++oUf1wXGIc49+yo1IT5lRTmm/g58uk2fWZga 1Y0ZL3FilI+EO49KtgKK4OPpe8XXlQnxJLXcARzm7w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeSlx67vNNIZyQtD9LnQyIc7KXLq+XLL/+BSQ2qoyUsgxj+igTsatPZQWJkF+HWwL+LE6Gql8BWMHvY8raLabM=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:24b0:: with SMTP id t45-v6mr3043446qtc.86.1533222445013; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ac8:128b:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6028a480-53a9-7399-94a0-fe0876811a6d@labn.net>
References: <59d144dd-4ed9-cbf1-77e6-10f07f52f901@labn.net> <bdae388c-85f8-d10c-0e11-f3fa6caff2a6@labn.net> <be52d31af54198d790b3b87dd8380be600bba8a9.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <6028a480-53a9-7399-94a0-fe0876811a6d@labn.net>
From: Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:07:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+-pDCe6bDuph_H-8SS+8xnsH0xqmBX=S85bkheYigYzO5EGyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000325db20572752b03"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Wuq2Y5FDJUaLRxYrRSRJMgVZdQ4>
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 15:07:28 -0000

I've no objection to this path forward.

Justin

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>