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

[Justin Dean <[e-mail]>]

I've no objection to this path forward.

Justin

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>