[manet] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-06: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 1) Maybe this is a bit of a blunt question because I might not know enough
 about DLEP but how does a modem know the number of hops? Is there any need to
 say something more about how to gather this information in the document?

 2) Should the security consideration section maybe also say something about
 the frequency of re-configurations? Maybe that should be limited, also in
 order to not generate a large amount of signalling messages that could congest
 the link. Maybe you want to at least limit the rate of messages sent such that
 multiple re-configuration could be covered by one message in case there is a
 high rate of re-configurations. Or is there already such a limit in DLEP? If
 yes, it would be good to state that explicitly in this document as well.

 nits:
 - There seems to be a text fragment (“example using .”) in the intro text:
 “This document refers to
   forwarding by intermediate modems as 'multi-hop forwarding'.  example
   using . DLEP Destination messages can be used to …”
 - Sec 3.1: s/to indicate the number of modem/to indicate the number of modems/
 -> plural: modemS