IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 15 March 2019 16:22 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 CD077130F14 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 e_7m7D-CA2TX for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:22:41 -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 2908A13125D for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw15.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.15]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3A04246B for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:09:35 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id 4pOphDHk4szDU4pOphTM4V; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:09:35 -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:From:References:Cc:To: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=miMjXcmUKA3Xzfc9rZRbIC2ovv08eBP6OsJi3hHTqH0=; b=yahW0Qg5oLwtbIuafibu+qGEZC RaUTgbV69/aaQpWfvbTpRyZ0GWmVTUkQAHazjQvkVrcWyLws6CpKGlgaeUkyalp9LbVIWGaVJHLLN xNo4xW1AjkrhzD+IaQLq9jFiN;
Received: from pool-72-66-11-201.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([72.66.11.201]:53302 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 1h4pOp-002niJ-4k; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:09:35 -0600
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension@ietf.org
Cc: "Ratliff, Stanley" <sratliff@idirect.net>, manet@ietf.org, Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group <manet-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <CAMMESszKYXy_Oy-L+TgiJqqWBWOFTOxtnjuaX+O8Q+Jpg9iO3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsxztEYE3aDz0zmAsPwqpU9Q1szv0qiMcH8kUf=O9jhfgg@mail.gmail.com> <07cfd806-e3b1-3772-70a6-9db5af9662e7@labn.net> <CAMMESsz4rXqph=RR7hmnQM3hBT34=d6sLpxEkpyx7=3gPFJ9ng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <9715773a-acb4-039f-a424-f881d0e05eef@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:09:34 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsz4rXqph=RR7hmnQM3hBT34=d6sLpxEkpyx7=3gPFJ9ng@mail.gmail.com>
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: 72.66.11.201
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1h4pOp-002niJ-4k
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-72-66-11-201.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [72.66.11.201]:53302
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 9
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Org: HG=bhcustomer;ORG=bluehost;
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/YdyGqTVxqfftdXu_HXlQIuxYh0M>
Subject: Re: [manet] AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-05
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:22:49 -0000

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.

Thanks,

Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email