[manet] planned next steps based on IETF 102

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 30 July 2018 22:07 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 BDD1F1313C3 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 LCou7xyO39AT for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) (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 5D345131220 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw15.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.15]) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C261E1072 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:02:35 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id kGFPfrxw0j0sokGFPf2Q1Y; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:02:35 -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:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Cc:Subject:From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=M+GV0MkCnPS8FPTGyuCe6LQVyq0eWgQXEGjXVNB6YA4=; b=JAbwNj/sElZDxiWXLNf2aMQWii csIXDwC9pPpxSi4LppJcJsdUOPMzNkzhIiv9aqlNmX/qvCjzrPUhD779ozr3oRKbNjZVR+b2uKAbF 8geo4HeBhm//Ktrj9gEEOr4e5;
Received: from pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.106.211]:47862 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 1fkGFP-000Wft-JL; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:02:35 -0600
To: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <59d144dd-4ed9-cbf1-77e6-10f07f52f901@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 18:02:34 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: 100.15.106.211
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1fkGFP-000Wft-JL
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.106.211]:47862
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/_31uWcU3uQcYJKvR9CRj82ua5Mg>
Subject: [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: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:07:44 -0000

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